There's photos here. The damage is pretty serious.
The organization is emphasizing the importance of donations to help rebound from the damages. You can act directly at their web page, or through the crowdfunding site CrowdTilt to encourage viral distribution.
Link to Original Source
They burned too many customers with "enterprise" devices that'd fail almost immediately, then treating the customers like shit when they did.
They bet too heavily on high performance, while not maintaining the kind of behavior that would bring back the customers who want devices like that.
The reason Dell and HP can get away with burning customers is simple: there's always another person who needs a cheap laptop.
Not many people need a new PCIe SSD.
Generally speaking, if you call the host and say "I need a line without caps, can you quote me a price," they will.
Oftentimes you'll have to call it a business line though.
Verizon FIOS caps are so far in the sky that you're unlikely ever to hit them.
Would be nice if they'd work on getting their service working instead.
Six months of having to use Google DNS because they can't run a goddamned DNS server.
Emotions are just really,really bad stuff to use to make law.
Frustratingly, the same thing can be said of the law which started this whole mess in the first place.
If this was self defense rather than "stand your ground," the whole thing would have been far simpler.
it is an insistence that Zimmerman's right to presumption of innocence be taken to absolutist heights of absurdity
Sorry, no. In the United States, if there is not proof, you are not guilty, no matter how often you might use begging words like "absurdity."
There is a legitimate, plausible alternative explanation, and the medical examiner said that Zimmerman was one or two skull-whacks from dead.
That *is* reasonable doubt, whether you agree or not, according to a jury of his peers.
Zimmerman's rights must be weighed against Martin's
RIghts weighting happens in civil cases. Never, ever in criminal cases.
Martin's right to life is treated in such relativist terms
You're just mis-using legal sounding words and waving your hands around. Court operates by strict rules. There was only one question on the docket: can we prove that Zimmerman did this? The answer came back "no."
There is no question of a dead man's right to life in a murder trial until intent is established.
Otherwise, we would have to conclude that courts can cherrypick when the different rights of people come into conflict.
My opinion is that you have shown no adequate logic which leads to this conclusion.
If he did attack Zimmerman and had lived, his sentence would have been what...
I'm guessing, since it depends on who prosecuted, what quality of job they did, whether Martin swayed them at all, whether the judge permitted the age to be taken into account, and probably most compellingly, just how bad the assault was.
Since the medical examiner said two more of those whacks and Zimmerman would be dead, I feel that it's quite likely that Zimmerman now has brain damage. Now I don't know about Florida, but I think in California that's an automatic upgrade to PC 245(a)(1) Assault with a Deadly Weapon, and then it's state felony $10k + 2-4 years per count (that is, every time he smashes his head into the ground, it's another 2-4 years) plus restitution (which, for brain injuries, can easily be six or seven figures.)
So what do you figure, four before Zimmerman got the gun pointed the right way? I mean, it's completely hypothetical.
But that's 8-16 for the head to concrete alone. Then there's all the other missteps along the way, and if they're out for blood, they'll charge each one.
It doesn't really matter if Zimmerman is credible.
Innocent until proven guilty. It's a pithy slogan until you have to apply it; then it's gut wrenching to stay austere.
Can you prove guilt?
The way the law reads, lethal force is allowed if a reasonable person in his position would think that their life is in danger.
I am not disputing you. However, I have never liked this; it legitimizes fear without evidence as a reason to attack, and lets after the fact judgment of others be an excuse for why.
Yes, I realize a hard line to be taken on this is impractical; how do you know whether you're stopping a rape or two consenting adults in edge play, etc.
But it still makes me uncomfortable, and seems almost certain in my opinion to cause far more harm than it prevents.
This should, in my opinion, fall under "I was being attacked and thought I was in self defense." That's really quite different than standing one's ground; Zimmerman was doing no such thing.
This means, for instance, that if someone has every appearance of intending to beat you to death, you have a right to use lethal force, regardless of what his actual plans were.
Someday, the tragic punchline to this sentence will be "Happy Halloween."
Actually, in most of America it's quite illegal to follow people at night with a loaded firearm.
there is a growing group of people who simply cannot debate ideas
I wonder why you think this is new.
For context, these people generally do not make impacts on history, and are as such forgotten. Next generation won't know about most of our creeps, just like we don't know about most of the previous generation's creeps.
Similarly, people who think classic rock is better than today's music are forgetting everything but the really good stuff. When's the last time you listened to Mott the Hoople?
I think you might be missing his point. Jury selection is not a random sampling, nor is it supposed to be. That jury is supposed to be representative, and it was not.
I think what he meant was "what is the chance that two professional lawyers in a high profile case could go through voir dire and produce a jury this likely to cause later racially toned misapprehension?"
The prosecution should have ensured at least one man, at least one black person, and at least one person from that neighborhood on the jury. The defense should have had at least one man and at least one white person. As much as most Americans (I myself am one) will react poorly to that as if it's a form of discriminatory deck stacking, that's actually how the system is supposed to work; these are the people who, in the decision making process, are supposed to bring germane context to the proceeding. This is why jury nullification is ever a topic in America - in a "queer bashing" there should be a gay person there to explain to the others what it's like to be in the victim's shoes, etc.
Hydrogen is not a power source, it's an energy storage medium.
I have never liked this line of argument. After all, it's essentially true of gasoline, too; it's just that nature did the work. (And, in a lot of cases, the hydrogen is mined too; yay natural gas.) Both are chemicals which are oxidized to release heat energy. If the meaningful difference is whether nature or we did the work, then they're both storage media.
You go on to cite energy capacity differences; those are only meaningful in apples to apples comparisons.
Any line of reasoning that assumes hydrogen is a power source - rather than just a storage medium with very poor energy density - is unfortunately based on a flawed premise.
I don't think this is actually correct.
Where do you find the actual meaningful difference to be? It's apparently not in that they're both exothermic chemistry based on the same element.
Other power sources aren't even remotely similar - eg nuclear, wind.
Why are two things that are virtually identical being seen as distinct? Is the issue whether nature put the power in instead of us? Is the difference between a power source and an energy storage medium found solely in whether you primarily imagine our having to put energy in to make them viable?
Does gasoline become an energy storage medium, despite zero actual changes, when they start sourcing it from CO2 in the atmosphere?
What is the meaningful net effect of being in one category or the other? You seem to be suggesting that the problem isn't just the energy density (and that in itself is misleading in many ways,) but rather a more sophisticated issue of whether it's a source or a medium - and that that is what's undermining their thought.
You can get hydrogen out of the ground, and you can spend energy to manufacture gasoline from the air, both today. If they're both sourced that way, does that mean that the lines of reasoning you're whargarbling at without actually showing an error, merely stating that there is one, suddenly become more ratified?
What if it happened to cost as much energy to get gasoline out of the ground as is received by burning it? That isn't the case today, but someday it will be, unless we stop using it. On that day, will it have become an energy storage medium?
Is the line about whether we have to invest energy to derive energy from it? Because calling something an energy storage medium based on how much power it takes to acquire seems ridiculous to me, as much so as does classing one chemical exothermic with nuclear and wind but against another chemical exothermic based on production rate, but I can't see any definition that seperates the two that doesn't end up with that apparent nonsense result.
Why is it that so many hydrogen cars and busses are actually doing well, if it's such a flawed premise?
Why are you measuring energy per liter? Liter is a unit of volume. The amount of energy per liter here is a direct function of pressure. No mention is made of pressure in two of the three cases.
Cryogenically stored? Room temperature? The temperature of the hydrogen or gasoline has virtually nothing to do with the amount of energy released by burning it.
Where did you get these numbers? They don't agree with the ones on Wikipedia. Granted, I'm a Wikipedia skeptic; if you can cite a valid source I'm happy to take it, but I remain somewhat doubtful that you'll be able to.
The proper measure here is not the energy density; that is and always has been asinine. The proper measure here is the specific energy - that is, by weight, not by volume. Hydrogen doesn't become a better fuel (oh sorry, "energy storage medium,") just because you put it under pressure. That's ridiculous. What matters is how much energy you can carry by weight, allowing for a practical limit on storage size. Hydrogen as a whole is not meaningfully better as a storage medium every time you learn to make an improved storage tank.
Hydrogen cars have worked very well for 30 years. They're cheap, they're efficient, and they let us move the burden of production to better controlled sources than a small engine. And no, that's not because of some phantom line between media and sources; the same thing would be true if you chose to distill gasoline from the air, which many people are doing, just not yet at market cost. If gasoline is both a fuel and a power storage medium, then I submit to you with respect that the distinction is masturbatory garbage, and does not in fact exist at all.
The real problem with hydrogen cars is simple: you can't get fuel just about anywhere you go. Chicken and egg.
Who doesn't save up at least a tiny bit of money (say 3 months salary) in case of a fucking emergency?
Most of America, it turns out.
Nearly half of America has less than $500 saved. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/22/americans-savings-500_n_2003285.html
The average American - including all those billionaires - has less than $6000. http://finance.zacks.com/much-money-average-american-family-savings-7304.html
What the fuck would you have fucking done if your fucking roof had fucking leaked?
There's no need for this level of rage. Take it down several notches, please; we can be civil in disagreement.