Well, reading that article, it sounds an awful lot like ONE Delta pilot didn't want a Surface. Though I'm sure we can trust Apple Insider to remain impartial...
Not to get into a pedantic-off, but it's an acronym because it can be pronounced as a word. If it wasn't a word (like "BBC" or "ATM"), it would be an initialism.
Ex post facto refers to acts already committed; there's nothing stopping a law barring future instances of that act. So they can't make a law saying that having purchased an old car is illegal, but they can make a law saying you're not allowed to drive it anymore.
I think it would be great to start equipping all motor vehicles with (well-designed, forwards-compatible) systems like this so that in 20-30 years when driverless cars are a viable option on the road, there's the infrastructure in place to support it.
Yeah, but we already knew about all of those. I don't think I would have ever guessed that my 3D printer was emitting nanosized particles at all, let alone consider whether that might be harmful.
The point of scientific research is to tell us stuff we don't know, and I did not know this.
I know it's tough to read the accompanying articles to things, but that image represents "someone who rises early in morning, eats lunch around noon, and sleeps at night (10 p.m.)".
If you sleep between 2am and 10am, your pattern will be different.
Corporations have a right to run their businesses however they want. The problem here is that, by all agreeing to restrict the rights of their customers in the same way, the corporations are colluding with one another to prevent those customers from simply switching to a competitor.
You know, I understand that knowing the distinction between 'who' and 'whom' has fallen out of vogue, so I'm okay with people just sticking with 'who' for all cases. But I gotta tell you, if you're gonna use 'whom', you'd better be using it properly unless you're aiming for "ironically smug".
'Whom' is only used when the person is the object of the phrase; if it's the subject, it's 'who'. Just remember the form "who [verb]ed whom".
"Patent for a door with a mechanical handle that may be opened via gestures performed on the handle. The door is opened if contact with the handle corresponds to a predefined gesture for opening the door."
I feel like they'd have more of a case if the upcoming Elder Scrolls game wasn't marketed as "SKYRIM" in giant caps, with a barely-noticeable "The Elder Scrolls V" above it.
Well, completely ignoring any effect the scene has on Han's character development, I think most people get outraged because it doesn't make sense that Jabba would send a bounty hunter that can't shoot someone sitting across the table from him.
Because it makes so little sense on its own, the only purpose it serves is to change Han's character from the original. Frankly, I'm not sure that Han would have survived so long if he waited until getting shot at before shooting.
So it's really the inanity of the change that I think people take issue with.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, reading that article, it sounds an awful lot like ONE Delta pilot didn't want a Surface. Though I'm sure we can trust Apple Insider to remain impartial...
Works well enough for the artist behind Penny Arcade, who gave the Surface Pro a rave review:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/2013/02/22/the-ms-surface-pro
Not to get into a pedantic-off, but it's an acronym because it can be pronounced as a word. If it wasn't a word (like "BBC" or "ATM"), it would be an initialism.
produced from coffee beans pooped out by the palm civet
Huh, I didn't think the title meant literally crappy.
It would be best if people started being more paranoid and start learning how to drop off the grid [...] Google the phrase
If you think Google-ing things doesn't yank you back onto the grid, you're gonna have a bad time
The reason it looks weird to you is because "Cybercriminals" doesn't match the verbs in the sentence.
It either should be "Cybercriminal Has Heroin Delivered, Calls Police" or "Cybercriminals Have Heroin Delivered, Call Police"
Ex post facto refers to acts already committed; there's nothing stopping a law barring future instances of that act. So they can't make a law saying that having purchased an old car is illegal, but they can make a law saying you're not allowed to drive it anymore.
I think it would be great to start equipping all motor vehicles with (well-designed, forwards-compatible) systems like this so that in 20-30 years when driverless cars are a viable option on the road, there's the infrastructure in place to support it.
Yeah, but we already knew about all of those. I don't think I would have ever guessed that my 3D printer was emitting nanosized particles at all, let alone consider whether that might be harmful.
The point of scientific research is to tell us stuff we don't know, and I did not know this.
Advanced software will come with time. All they'd have to do is open the API and run an app store, and they'd be set.
The hard part is getting people to wear the displays in the first part.
If you're seeing talking merkins, you may have eaten some bad insects.
Honestly, including their data on that list is a pretty big step forward for them these days.
I know it's tough to read the accompanying articles to things, but that image represents "someone who rises early in morning, eats lunch around noon, and sleeps at night (10 p.m.)".
If you sleep between 2am and 10am, your pattern will be different.
Maybe that's why single-edged swords are more popular in Japan.
Corporations have a right to run their businesses however they want. The problem here is that, by all agreeing to restrict the rights of their customers in the same way, the corporations are colluding with one another to prevent those customers from simply switching to a competitor.
First they came for the torrents, and I didn't speak out, because I did not download torrents...
You know, I understand that knowing the distinction between 'who' and 'whom' has fallen out of vogue, so I'm okay with people just sticking with 'who' for all cases. But I gotta tell you, if you're gonna use 'whom', you'd better be using it properly unless you're aiming for "ironically smug".
'Whom' is only used when the person is the object of the phrase; if it's the subject, it's 'who'. Just remember the form "who [verb]ed whom".
Does anyone else think that it looks and moves exactly like a headcrab?
"Patent for a door with a mechanical handle that may be opened via gestures performed on the handle. The door is opened if contact with the handle corresponds to a predefined gesture for opening the door."
I feel like they'd have more of a case if the upcoming Elder Scrolls game wasn't marketed as "SKYRIM" in giant caps, with a barely-noticeable "The Elder Scrolls V" above it.
I personally think it's more interesting that somebody was offered $60,000 for it and they declined.
Well, completely ignoring any effect the scene has on Han's character development, I think most people get outraged because it doesn't make sense that Jabba would send a bounty hunter that can't shoot someone sitting across the table from him. Because it makes so little sense on its own, the only purpose it serves is to change Han's character from the original. Frankly, I'm not sure that Han would have survived so long if he waited until getting shot at before shooting. So it's really the inanity of the change that I think people take issue with.
XP was released 10 years ago and people upgrade their computers much more frequently than they buy new cars.
If it was a model of car that was 30 years old and someone found a serious safety problem, the unanimous verdict would be to buy a new, modern car.