I can understand why Steve Jobs would be upset over the whole Android thing. I don't think it's the right way to handle it, but that's easy for people like me and you to say, since it's not our product.
Everyone has flaws, it's really nothing to be pissed over. At least Jobs went after big companies instead of buying out and shuttering small potential compeditors the way MSFT did. But he was a complicated man, and he had the good sense to have that recorded for posterity. If he hadent worked to have that biography written, we'd probably be building statues to him today. Most people we idolize don't want us to ever find out the truth about them, but Steve Jobs' legacy was his products, not his image. I wish more famous and powerful people were like him in that regard. There would be a lot fewer statues around today.
If you don't execute every method described in a claim, you have not violated that claim. That's how it works.
But this doesn't just apply to patent claims. Whenever you take a single sentence out of context you may be misrepresenting the overall meaning of the sentence. It's scary to think that so many moderators apparently don't understand that, or didn't bother to check before moderating your misleading/misinformed post.
Maybe I'm just more literate than the average reader, but this clearly doesn't cover "pinch to zoom." This allows the user to resume a multitouch operation for a period after removing his fingers from the glass to essentially allow him to continue his adjustment further than he otherwise could.
You don't understand how patent claims work. You can't just take one sentence out of a claim and say that the overall patent covers whatever's in that sentence.
Do you understand that the jury had of render decisions on all of the questions? If they skipped one they would have to come back to it later in order to reach a a decision and finish their deliberations.
She would have been 18 by the time Steve Jobs returned to Apple and began collecting his $1 salary, not to be confused with his income, of which he had other sources.
Infants become adults later in life. Adults who may have opted not to have an irreversible procedure to remove part of their genetals if it were up to them. What kind of parents would opt for something like that? Bad ones. That a board of pediatricians would recommend circumcision over a supposed savings of $300 or so in health costs is outrageous! Especially as the procedure has horrible side-effects. It just goes to show how little we value individual sovereignty these days. Apparently it's worth less than $300.
So you teach that to the class and you tell them that they will be expected to know the full list of enzymes from number two.
Why would you expect your students to know a list of of arbitrary names ascribed to chemicals used in digestion? How could memorizing such a list possibly be important or useful to students? Requiring that makes no sense at all. People can look up trivial details like that on their own, should they need them. The vast majority (dare I say all if it!) is immediately forgotten by students after the test. If people use a particular set of information in their field of study/work a lot they will naturally memorize it on their own in order to save time! Theres no need to torture students by requiring them to memorize lists of trivial details that are meaningless to them aren't likely to be useful later on.
Do you honestly believe this is legal behavior? This is an obvious case of obstruction of justice, but also would have involved making false statements in legal reports. What are you smoking?! It is not legal for the military to cover up civilian casualties they've caused. Not ever.
Do you honestly believe this is legal behavior? This is an obvious case of obstruction of justice, but also would have involved making false statements in legal reports. What are you smoking?! It is not legal for the military to cover up civilian casualties they've caused. Not ever.
Accidentally shooting the wrong people during war is legal
. ..for extremely narrow-minded definitions of the word legal.
Nevertheless, covering it up is illegal.
That's what I meant when I said "The criminal act exposed was the coverup." But I suppose you probably couldn't be bothered to read the first whole paragraph of my post. Come to think of it, I have very little reason to believe you will read past the first two sentences of this post either. And to think I was once given a "B" on a summary because it was "too short."
The collateral murder video shows unarmed civilians (including a reporter) being killed by US helicopters. The incident was later covered up by the US military. It was not, by and stretch of the imagination, a friendly fire incident. The criminal act exposed was the coverup.
Morgan Tsvangirai is doing very well, thank you very much. He was never in any danger, and is not in any danger today. Any fallout from the article published was political only. And do you believe that Zimbabweans don't deserve to know that their prime minister was was secretly urging the US to continue sanctions while publicly he asked them to discontinue them? I think it's wrong to say one thing and do another, but maybe that's just me. It's not like the people of Zimbabwe are going to say "in light of that, maybe Mugabe isn't such a bad guy." Most of the people I talked to when I was over there hated they guy and couldn't wait to be rid of him.
It's not that they wan't him dead, as much as they want him tried and convicted in the US. Basically saying to everyone that no one is out of their reach. They got Bin Laden. They'll get Assange. There's no limit to how far they will go to get their enemies.
people were put in danger and some actually died due to Manning's treason
And we're just supposed to take your word for that, right? Or if not yours, someone else's?
If they don't execute him then they should never execute anyone.
That's probably a good place to start reforming the "justice" system.
The man violated the trust placed in him.
. ..in order to shed light on government abuses of power, secrets which he probably didn't know he'd be required to keep when he was making his oath. So whose trust was really violated here? And do you honestly think violating trust is the worst offense a man can commit? If that's the standard we should all be executed.
I know it's already been said, but the summary itself mentions the proposed power source (not to mention the article!). Is it really too much to ask that you read the few sentences you are replying to before you hit reply? Really?! How fucking lazy can you be? At least it seems like you read the whole entire headline so there's that.
Slashdot Mirror
Only a empire would need to fight a war on such terms anyway.
I can understand why Steve Jobs would be upset over the whole Android thing. I don't think it's the right way to handle it, but that's easy for people like me and you to say, since it's not our product.
Everyone has flaws, it's really nothing to be pissed over. At least Jobs went after big companies instead of buying out and shuttering small potential compeditors the way MSFT did. But he was a complicated man, and he had the good sense to have that recorded for posterity. If he hadent worked to have that biography written, we'd probably be building statues to him today. Most people we idolize don't want us to ever find out the truth about them, but Steve Jobs' legacy was his products, not his image. I wish more famous and powerful people were like him in that regard. There would be a lot fewer statues around today.
If you don't execute every method described in a claim, you have not violated that claim. That's how it works.
But this doesn't just apply to patent claims. Whenever you take a single sentence out of context you may be misrepresenting the overall meaning of the sentence. It's scary to think that so many moderators apparently don't understand that, or didn't bother to check before moderating your misleading/misinformed post.
Maybe I'm just more literate than the average reader, but this clearly doesn't cover "pinch to zoom." This allows the user to resume a multitouch operation for a period after removing his fingers from the glass to essentially allow him to continue his adjustment further than he otherwise could.
You don't understand how patent claims work. You can't just take one sentence out of a claim and say that the overall patent covers whatever's in that sentence.
It seems like what you're describing would have taken less than two days.
If they didn't discuss it, how did they agree on an answer?
Do you understand that the jury had of render decisions on all of the questions? If they skipped one they would have to come back to it later in order to reach a a decision and finish their deliberations.
Most of the "christian religion" is devoted to finding ways to ignore what's written in the Bible.
She would have been 18 by the time Steve Jobs returned to Apple and began collecting his $1 salary, not to be confused with his income, of which he had other sources.
Infants become adults later in life. Adults who may have opted not to have an irreversible procedure to remove part of their genetals if it were up to them. What kind of parents would opt for something like that? Bad ones. That a board of pediatricians would recommend circumcision over a supposed savings of $300 or so in health costs is outrageous! Especially as the procedure has horrible side-effects. It just goes to show how little we value individual sovereignty these days. Apparently it's worth less than $300.
This 2012, we have a vaccine for HPV. There no way this should reasonably be a part of the debate at this point.
Bear in mind that as a population ages, the ones that were accident prone are removed from the population, so this doesn't work linearly.
Why would you expect your students to know a list of of arbitrary names ascribed to chemicals used in digestion? How could memorizing such a list possibly be important or useful to students? Requiring that makes no sense at all. People can look up trivial details like that on their own, should they need them. The vast majority (dare I say all if it!) is immediately forgotten by students after the test. If people use a particular set of information in their field of study/work a lot they will naturally memorize it on their own in order to save time! Theres no need to torture students by requiring them to memorize lists of trivial details that are meaningless to them aren't likely to be useful later on.
Since the man they were helping was a reporter, and not an armed combatant, aiding him would not have made this family a legitimate military target.
Yeah, who cares if "innocent" people get shot? Fuck 'em!
Rest assured, obstruction of justice is still illegal in the US military. Not that it matters since it's a pretty easy thing to get away with.
Do you honestly believe this is legal behavior? This is an obvious case of obstruction of justice, but also would have involved making false statements in legal reports. What are you smoking?! It is not legal for the military to cover up civilian casualties they've caused. Not ever.
Do you honestly believe this is legal behavior? This is an obvious case of obstruction of justice, but also would have involved making false statements in legal reports. What are you smoking?! It is not legal for the military to cover up civilian casualties they've caused. Not ever.
. . .for extremely narrow-minded definitions of the word legal.
Nevertheless, covering it up is illegal.
That's what I meant when I said "The criminal act exposed was the coverup." But I suppose you probably couldn't be bothered to read the first whole paragraph of my post. Come to think of it, I have very little reason to believe you will read past the first two sentences of this post either. And to think I was once given a "B" on a summary because it was "too short."
The collateral murder video shows unarmed civilians (including a reporter) being killed by US helicopters. The incident was later covered up by the US military. It was not, by and stretch of the imagination, a friendly fire incident. The criminal act exposed was the coverup.
Morgan Tsvangirai is doing very well, thank you very much. He was never in any danger, and is not in any danger today. Any fallout from the article published was political only. And do you believe that Zimbabweans don't deserve to know that their prime minister was was secretly urging the US to continue sanctions while publicly he asked them to discontinue them? I think it's wrong to say one thing and do another, but maybe that's just me. It's not like the people of Zimbabwe are going to say "in light of that, maybe Mugabe isn't such a bad guy." Most of the people I talked to when I was over there hated they guy and couldn't wait to be rid of him.
Question: what are the four countries you are talking about?
It's not that they wan't him dead, as much as they want him tried and convicted in the US. Basically saying to everyone that no one is out of their reach. They got Bin Laden. They'll get Assange. There's no limit to how far they will go to get their enemies.
And we're just supposed to take your word for that, right? Or if not yours, someone else's?
That's probably a good place to start reforming the "justice" system.
. . .in order to shed light on government abuses of power, secrets which he probably didn't know he'd be required to keep when he was making his oath. So whose trust was really violated here? And do you honestly think violating trust is the worst offense a man can commit? If that's the standard we should all be executed.
I know it's already been said, but the summary itself mentions the proposed power source (not to mention the article!). Is it really too much to ask that you read the few sentences you are replying to before you hit reply? Really?! How fucking lazy can you be? At least it seems like you read the whole entire headline so there's that.