Mtwf First 3 clips from Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter inspire a drinking game
that another body, 3753 Cruithne, is a quasi-orbital satellite of Earth. This simply means that Cruithne doesn ;t loop around the Earth in a nice ellipse in the same way as the moon, or indeed the artificial satellites we loft into orbit
stanley thermos . Instead, Cruithne scuttles around the inner solar system in what called a horseshoe orbit. Cruithne Weird Orbit
https://youtube/watch v=lRaqYClJ154 To help understand why it called a horseshoe orbit, let imagine we ;re looking down at the solar system, rotating at the same rate as the Earth goes round the sun. From our viewpoint, the Earth looks stationary. A body on a simple horseshoe orbit around the Earth moves toward it, then turns round and moves away. Once it moved so far away it approaching Earth from the other side, it turns around and moves away again. Cruithne from a Stationary Earth Position Horseshoe orbits are actually quite common for moons in the solar system. Saturn has a couple of moons in this configuration, for instance.
https://youtube/watch v=dsHsYjuudVo What unique about Cruithne is how it wobbles and sways along its horseshoe. If you look at Cruithne motion in the solar system, it makes a messy rin
stanley cup nz g around Earth orbit, swinging so wide tha
stanley termosas t it comes into the neighborhood of both Venus and Mars. Cruithne orbits the sun about once a year, but it takes nearly 800 years to complete this messy ring shape around th Ijrw A Tiny Humidifier in a Bottle Makes Hotel Rooms More Comfortable
in the jury verdict form, a possibility Samsung anticipated [PDF]. Here the jury Amended Verdict Form [PDF], amended to fix the mistakes. Here the original [PDF]. Here 82
water bottle stanley 17 the note [PDF] the jury sent to the judge when told to fix the inconsistencies. What are they, they asked Please let the jury know, they wrote in the only note ever sent in their deliberations, of the incons
stanley quencher istencies we are supposed to deliberate on. We sort of assumed that Friday decision in the Apple vs Samsung trial wouldn ;t be the last we heard of the case. But Groklaw has gone through various quotes from the jurors and legal experts, and it looks like Samsung going to have very strong grounds for appeal thanks to one wildly inconsistent jury. In two instances, results were crazily co
stanley espana ntradictory, and the judge had to have the jury go back and fix the goofs. As a result the damages award was reduced to $1,049,343,540, 1 down from $1,051,855,000. For just one example, the jury had said one device didn ;t infringe, but then they awarded Apple $2 million for inducement. In another they awarded a couple of hundred thousand for a device they ;d ruled didn ;t infringe at all. This all was revealed by The Verge in its live blog coverage: The jury appears to have awarded damages for the Galaxy Tab 10.1 LTE infringing鈥?219,694 worth鈥攂ut didn ;t find that it had actually infringed anything 8230;.A similar in