That's a misdemeanor.

When someone preloads software that you request be preloaded on a device, that does *NOT* make the software vendor of that software a "subcontractor".

Unless, you know, (1) there was a contract between Apple and Pearson relating to contract line items, and (2) There was *no* contract between LA Unified and Pearson, and (3) LA Unified did not specify the curriculum software to use, and (4) Apple was acting as a slaes agent, rather than as an intermediary.

The breakdown they (LA Unified) gave was:

Special Case ($80);
3-year Apple Care warranty ($150);
Pre-loaded apps ($13-$21);
Pearson curriculum ($150-$300);
PD ($20); and
Buffer Pool ($20).

So it's pretty clear that they meet none of the criteria for subcontractor under the contract.

The felony wasn't.

It's my understanding that the gyrocopter in question was actually under the 250 pound limit that would require FAA registration.

This would mean the felony charge is bogus.

Can anyone confirm the vehicle total unladen weight?

Run Windows VMs and keep adding them until the boxes are under some level of resource contention (3:1, 4:1 vCPU:pCPU). If you don't see a difference, I'd be highly curious of your workloads and configuration.

This is exactly correct. I myself replaced a SQL Server cluster that was using boxes with dual 12-core AMD procs with one using dual 4-core Xeons a couple years ago. Performance and responsiveness went way up while the bill to Microsoft dropped massively.

I was a solid AMD enthusiast from the original Athlons all the way up until about 5 years ago. They went from huge underdog to reigning champion for a long time while the marketing guys ran Intel's product offering into the ground with everything from Northwood to Prescott and all the stuff in between. But the landscape has shifted for AMD. They've simply gone downhill. As of the last couple of years, I can no longer justify buying AMD procs at work and I'd already switched at home. That AMD could boast significantly more cores was the last leg they had to stand on in the server market; now they're a has-been.

I sincerely hope they recover and blow past Intel as they've done in the past. I think that's healthier for the market and I think we all win when that competition heats up. But at this point, there's little to justify their existence in the server space and the market share numbers reflect that (dropping from >25% share to ~3%).

OK I've read "various articles in the Seattle Times.

I read the one about the state auditor being indicted.

I read the one about the infant getting shot in the head in Kent in a drive-by.

I read the one about the whooping cough outbreak (which erroneously claims that herd immunity for Pertussis is mathematically even possible, given the diseases R(0) would require 94-96% immunization, and all unimmunized persons be uniformly distributed throughout the population.

I read the one about Shawn Kemp co-hosting a party because Thunder missed the playoffs.

None of these "various articles in the Seattle Times" supported your position.

Link one supporting article from the Seattle Times which is a post-analysis of the job market following the minimum wage being raised. I'll waive the numbers on the small businesses which have gone out of business over the minimum wage being raised (for now).

Sure we grok it. Do you not grok the idea that if you are not pulling numbers out of your ass, then you probably have the reference material right in front of you, and can therefore paste the information a hell of a lot easier than having us go looking for supporting numbers for your made up statistics for you?

Stupidest zombie movie ever. Seriously.

So.... #NotAllUnions ???

Citation needed. Preferably one with a post-analysis of the Seattle job market, with another graph showing impact (if any) on number of small businesses in the immediate area.

It's a grading system, based on three grading criteria, each of which can score up to an 'A':

Game success among critics/reviewers
"Innovative gameplay"
Financial success

Given the major reviewers comments on "Borderlands: The Pre-Sequel", the fact that it's "Yet Another First Person Shoot", and the company being unable to afford to remain in business, rather than "AAA Studio", it'd probably be better to describe 2K as a "BCF" studio.

They definitely get an F on their financial success, and YAFPS is hardly innovative game play, so they get a grudging C there, and the reviews at the top sites give them generally in the neighborhood of an 80% approval by reviewers (only GameStop rates them higher than 80%), so that's a B.

I really hate that people hype studios themselves as "AAA", as if that means they are going to get A's in all three categories, just because of who they are, or because of the marketing hype behind their games contributing to a likelihood of good reviews or financial success.

In reality, you are only as good as your last release in all three categories. 2K blew it in at least two of the categories, and turned in B grade work in the third, so it's no surprise they failed.

They were actually unhappy with Pearson.

The article makes this very clear. It wouldn't matter if the Pearson Curriculum were on an iPad or an Android device, they'd still be unhappy with it. The attachment of Apple to the story is a means of click-baiting it. Pretty clear in the quotes from their attorney:

L.A. schools Supt. Ramon C. Cortines “made the decision that he wanted to put them on notice, Pearson in particular, that he’s dissatisfied with their product,” said David Holmquist, general counsel for the nation’s second-largest school system. He said millions of dollars could be at stake.

In a letter sent Monday to Apple, Holmquist wrote that it “will not accept or compensate Apple for new deliveries of [Pearson] curriculum.” Nor does the district want to pay for further services related to the Pearson product.

Pretty ringing condemnation of Pearson's products by the school district; note that the Pearson products might not eve be at fault, given that the complaint was that it didn't help with the standardized testing scores.

"Simulations of fusion are only 50 years away!"

I suggested the funnel landing previously. You really wouldn't want to spin it.

I'm pretty sure the problem at that point would be thermal damage to the vehicle. You could perhaps do this on land, and of course you'd probably want fresh water as a coolant and noise suppression, same as the shuttle used to suppress acoustic energy reflected from the pad to prevent it damaging the shuttle. The shuttle usually went through about 1/3 million gallons of water per launch. Of course with the rocket exhause itself, that produced a lot of HCl, and you probably wouldn't want to sit your engines in that, any more than in the ocean.

It's probably be better if they just had flip-down feet to widen the base of the cone ( the falling over was always a result of the center of mass being outside the interior circle of the cone, as described by the landing base -- or it wouldn't have fallen.

The other suggestion would be a big-ass electromagnet to lock the base components into place as it currently exists, but getting power out to the platform for that might be problematic. Maybe they could use a bunch of Tesla batteries, since it's only have to hold until you could mechanically latch the landing legs down.