or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by johndoe98

And what is her side? Oh that's right, we don't know what she can or will do. Until then we ought to construct our beliefs in proportion to the evidence at hand. Apple's claiming Samsung is trying to tamper with the jury. Samsung explained there is no way to tamper with the jury since the jury was instructed not to follow any media related to this case. So unless the jury is not fulfilling its function/duty, which is not a reasonable assumption of law abiding citizens,...
LOL. Never heard it, but I like it.
Where is my reasoning inaccurate? What facts are not veridical? I'm happy to be proven wrong and to change my perspective. But I'm not seeing much of an argument from many of you, and this response isn't much of one now is it?
I'd like to see this too. Given the lawyer's declaration, I fear it would raise First Amendment issues. That might play well in the appeal courts no?
I see you aren't a fan of nuance. First off, the general public cannot pressure the court in any way. Second, it was excluded from the jury. Full stop. Why are you engaging in hasty generalizations here? That your idea of civil discourse?
I think you might be the one guilty of confabulating a bit here. Let's get a few things clear straight away. #1 if the judge said she wanted the case to be tried in public, that automatically implies that the evidence is not protected from the public domain, anyone can request it and be granted access to it. #2 The First Amendment protects free speech, and so if there is no trial information that is protected from public knowledge, there can be nothing wrong in disclosing...
Did you even read the declaration? Quinn's point, repeated multiple times, was that the information was already public, so this is a non-issue. Additionally, the judge only told Samsung to exclude it from the jury, not the public. Again, the judge wanted all the trial information to remain public knowledge. Lesson/moral? You reap what you sow.
Good response. Yesterday I thought the release of the information quite questionable, today Quinn's declaration has convinced me it was entirely fair game.
I'm not sure I understand your question. The only thing Power Nap doesn't do on battery is the Time Machine Backups. Could they enable this later? Sure, but it isn't likely they will. If they haven't enabled it this time around it is probably because their tests revealed it would consume too much power. Imagine if you just did a huge update spanning several GBs, Time Machine could take hours (depending on your Wifi connection) and so you would wake up with a pretty dead...
Intel Smart Connect will likely work for most OSs no?Doesn't the Dell XPS 13 already do this? And that's probably on Windows I'd imagine.
New Posts  All Forums: