or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by amoradala

Samsung seem to lack the understanding that 'biting the hand that feeds' will hurt you more in the long run. Not just biting Apple though. Did anyone catch that POS Galaxy Note tablet they released yesterday ? http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/15/3243546/samsung-galaxy-note-10-1-review How could they expect to sell THAT to the public and expect good customer experience and recommendation, when it Just doesn't work.
I am a little concerned this might not go Apple's way. It is obvious to all but the stupid which way it SHOULD go. But sometimes juries are stupid. If it goes the wrong way, remember this. . . Steve's greatest triumphs were OSX and iOS. Samsung's touchwiz is just a poor copy skin over a poor copy of iOS. They actually have nothing. Samsung have given up competing for tablet space, because no matter how good their hardware is, Android drags them down. They have written...
Apple ][ That must be him (or close enough) lets march to his house and sort him out. I'll light the torches.
I remember (from the book) that Steve Jobs could never find furniture that he really liked, so the house was sparcely furnished. I think I read that he had one designer coffee table in an otherwise empty living room. Might explain why the theft only amounted to $60.000. That probably WAS the coffee table.
Bill Gates and Gonorrhea in the same screenshot. Nice !
I was aiming at Samsung ! ;)
That's an interesting way of looking at it. Perhaps the law should be simplified to accommodate the jury.   The same logic could be applied to medicine. A heart surgery procedure could be carried out not by a specialist, but by a randomly chosen person. It is just a matter of making a complicated procedure less complicated for the average person.
  I'm speaking here of jury system in general. I think a "professional" jury made up of well educated, trained and specialized men and women. Sworn to impartiality and fairness. Trained in the language of law (a language that negates ambiguity and double meaning). A jury that understands scientific evidence and its implications. ( for DNA evidence etc), would make more intelligent decisions and allow the lawyers to argue and present cases at a much higher level.   And in...
Can you imagine if scientists judged their work but gut feeling and persuasion ?
I often wonder whether the current jury system is the best way to serve justice.   Take highly trained well educated lawyers, specialized in their field, to argue with each other, constantly breaking complex arguments into easy to understand soundbites,  so that the untrained, perhaps uneducated public jury, can make the final decision.   How can this jury (or any jury )decide on a complex case BUT to go by gut reaction and persuasion.
New Posts  All Forums: