And that would derive from Latin, where the active verb appears at the end of the sentence. People forget (or never knew) this, which is why the "Harold got shot in the eye" belief from the Bayeux Tapestry gained hold because "Haroldus" was above someone suffering from sudden ocular disability, whereas Harold himself was being shown cut down by a swordsman below the verb "est".
Sounds like a kohl to action.
It uses mutated neutrinos. But first you have to reverse the polarity and switch to B.
Guava. No, I don't know why either.
There's also "cretin". "Dullard" seems to have escaped scrutiny, mainly because its use is considered more pretentious than insulting.
If anybody believes a false match will be deleted after they've been accosted and forced to prove they aren't who the system identified them as, I've got a whole range of bridges for sale at knockdown prices.
> To keep on music for a bit, Tears for Fear's, "Mad World," as a single never charted
More accurately, it was never released in US. No idea why as it reached number 3 in UK singles chart and was the 12th best-selling UK single of 1982. Every country it was released in it got into the top 25.
When the clocks change it's at most 17 days before sunrise / sunset is "back" to the time it was before the change. Not very long, but during that time there is a benefit by not having to commute in the dark. In winter, you'll end up doing that anyway, so may as well delay the inevitable as much as possible.
In more southerly latitudes where that doesn't really apply there is an inflated opinion of inconvenience and entitlement over changing a clock because that's apparently so fucking onerous to do something twice a year.
> The case could be heard as soon as this month, although it is unclear whether there will be any public disclosure of the hearing. The government is likely to argue the case should be restricted on national security grounds.
Except that this is something that would affect all iPhone customers on the planet, not just those in UK, so Apple can go ahead and disclose everything, not only because of 4th Amendment in US, but also to point out the hypocrisy of wanting to keep details of a case about removing privacy private. It also far surpasses the "public interest" bar.
Part of the ignorance is not even knowing that ADP was a thing. Apple didn't publicise it, it isn't set on by default and not one person I know with an iPhone had heard of it until the news broke that in the UK it isn't available any more.
If you don't know about something your phone isn't doing you're not going to kick up much fuss when it can no longer do that thing. The most you'll get is "oh, what's that? I might have wanted to use that. Oh well, never mind."
"Bless yore beautiful tires
Wherever you may be
We ain't met yet but I'm a'willin' to bet
You're the truck for me"
> You don't just register "007" and you own all use of those three numbers in that sequence
Except if you're Peugeot. Them claiming vehicle model numbers of the form [1-9]0(0)[1-9] could only be used for their ones is why the Porsche 911 wasn't the Porsche 901.
You're talking about the vehicle model category and how it applies to a vehicle model of a different company. There is nothing "except Peugeot" here, in fact Peugeot is doing exactly what the GP said.
Porsche wanted to number it a 901, but Peugeot complained saying they had exclusive rights of ownership to numbers of a certain form. This was upheld, so Porsche has 911, 927, 959, etc., anything they like so long as there isn't a 0 in the middle. That's trademarking *numbers* which is even more idiotic than the repeated claiming ownership of the name of anything starting with "easy". The category of product is immaterial to the point.
Yet they decided not to care when Saab brought out the 9001. Perhaps that family car isn't as easily confused with a Peugeot family car like a Porsche sports car would be
> You don't just register "007" and you own all use of those three numbers in that sequence
Except if you're Peugeot. Them claiming vehicle model numbers of the form [1-9]0(0)[1-9] could only be used for their ones is why the Porsche 911 wasn't the Porsche 901.
No, as that is referring to demands (not requests) against a particular third party. Because governments don't want those who hold data to tell the owners of that data that their affairs are being poked into otherwise they'd invoke pesky data protection things like the 4th Amendment, or similar in their country, and we can't have that.
If the headline is trying to evoke Mark Antony's speech in Julius Caesar Act III Scene II, the TFS missed the obvious: "For the stakeholder is an honourable person. So are they all, all honourable people"...
Take an astronaut to launch.
