Because the Start button wasn't that great in the first place. It was essentially a select set of shortcuts.
A much better solution exists in Mac OS X, and should be emulated. Pin to the Dock the following folders: Home directory, Applications. Set them as list, sort by name.
Access to ALL files/folders/applications with one click.
No navigating into the hard drive if the installer didn't put a shortcut in the "All Programs" folder.
That oath is for witnesses, not jurors. Their oath says something like: "I do solemnly swear or affirm that as a member of this jury I will discharge my duty honestly and faithfully, to the best of my ability, and that I will a true verdict render according to the evidence, without fear, favor, or affection, and that I will be governed by the instructions of the court. So help me God."
Also, if you think courts like it when you 'anticipate' things, pray you never do anything illegal. The judge was asking explicit questions, and did not ask about ALL lawsuits, or even lawsuits involving patents. Either of which are obvious. You may not like it, but those are the facts.
He raised his hand as a yes answer to the question, just like several jurors did. Because of that, they went to him for an explanation. And got clarification on that lawsuit. They didn't ask him if he had more than one lawsuit.
He answered yes by raising his hand. He then volunteered ONE example. He was not asked to disclose all cases. He did not misrepresent anything. He did not state he only had one lawsuit, or answer any questions as to how many lawsuits he had been involved in. That's not his fault for those questions not being asked.
As for the other part, yeah, that's probably where they'll nail him. However, his a-ha moment was described to a journalist, not any court member.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes.
First you learn to code.
Then you learn to code well.
Just like everything in life.
Because the Start button wasn't that great in the first place. It was essentially a select set of shortcuts.
A much better solution exists in Mac OS X, and should be emulated.
Pin to the Dock the following folders: Home directory, Applications.
Set them as list, sort by name.
Access to ALL files/folders/applications with one click.
No navigating into the hard drive if the installer didn't put a shortcut in the "All Programs" folder.
Take a week of the Defense budget. Spread it out across 10 projects to fund for a year.
No, Big Bird is funneling the money to the Colombians. THAT's why it has to be cut off.
Not if you're paying him.
Don't you mean pedophiles?
who shrug and say, hey we already invented filesystems decades ago. With lots of patents around them.
Helping the starving?
Doesn't mean it's not funny!
Or ban interstate water sales.
Make do with what you have.
Science has explained psychics in one word.
False.
or even Repeatedly False.
Also, love = chemistry.
Also, there is NO practical difference between the first and third option.
One says, yes I am ok with being tracked. So they track.
Three says, I said nothing about being tracked. So they track.
So allow OR no preference are opting in to tracking.
How can you tell the difference in firefox between the first and third option?
Both are shown by an unchecked box.
How does Apache being a bad player become Microsoft's fault?
I don't like MSFT products, but still don't follow that 'logic'.
Does Firefox ask for DNT to be enabled? No. You have to go to Tools>Options>Privacy and enable it.
http://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-do-i-turn-do-not-track-feature
Since it is OFF by default, tracking is allowed by default.
Now, whether or not this is the wishes of users, I have no idea. And I'm guessing any survey would have significant biases.
Too bad you're ignorant.
That oath is for witnesses, not jurors. Their oath says something like:
"I do solemnly swear or affirm that as a member of this jury I will discharge my duty honestly and faithfully, to the best of my ability, and that I will a true verdict render according to the evidence, without fear, favor, or affection, and that I will be governed by the instructions of the court. So help me God."
Also, if you think courts like it when you 'anticipate' things, pray you never do anything illegal.
The judge was asking explicit questions, and did not ask about ALL lawsuits, or even lawsuits involving patents. Either of which are obvious.
You may not like it, but those are the facts.
I'm not sure even could have answered yes to your third question.
How would he have known that one of the lawyers from his suit in 1993 was a spouse of one of the lawyers in this case in 2012?
The last question is one that should have been asked to everybody, individually.
If only Samsung could have had an opportunity to excuse these jurors...
Not to Nokia. Wait...
Pretty sure they can get that for free by reading Slashdot comments.
He raised his hand as a yes answer to the question, just like several jurors did.
Because of that, they went to him for an explanation. And got clarification on that lawsuit.
They didn't ask him if he had more than one lawsuit.
So? Did he answer the question "have you ever been involved in a lawsuit?"
Yes, and truthfully so, having given an example.
Was he asked if he was involved in any other lawsuits, or more than one lawsuit? No.
She'll throw out the motion when she sees it.
And yet not once was he ask if he had any other examples.
Any != all.
He answered the 'any' question honestly and truthfully.
You may not like it, but that was the question asked.
He answered yes by raising his hand.
He then volunteered ONE example. He was not asked to disclose all cases. He did not misrepresent anything. He did not state he only had one lawsuit, or answer any questions as to how many lawsuits he had been involved in.
That's not his fault for those questions not being asked.
As for the other part, yeah, that's probably where they'll nail him. However, his a-ha moment was described to a journalist, not any court member.