• Apple Files Generic Trademark Application Hints At Night Shift For Mac 2017
• Apple Files Generic Trademark Application Hints At Night Shift For Mac Free

The midwife found murdered eight days after vanishing following a night shift was dumped in a shallow grave inside a duvet cover with her face and eyes bound with masking tape, a court heard today. Samantha Eastwood, 28, was not shot or stabbed and detectives say two forensic experts are concentrating on her neck but may need six months to determine her cause of death.

The much-loved midwife was last seen after a night shift at Royal Stoke University Hospital on Friday, July 27, and filmed on CCTV smiling as she left the maternity ward. On Saturday August 4 - eight days later - she was found dead in a disused salt quarry wrapped within a single duvet cover with masking tape strapped over her face and eyes, Stafford Crown Court heard today. Michael Stirling, 32, the brother-in-law of Miss Eastwood's ex-fiance John Peake, was charged with her murder on Sunday and appeared before a judge today.

Flower lay where Samantha was found murdered at a disused quarry in remote woodland in Caverswall, near Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire Appearing from HMP Dovecote via video-link, wearing a high-vis vest and a grey T-shirt, he spoke only to confirm his name, age and nationality and that he understood the proceedings. Samantha's body was found eight miles from her home in Baddeley Green, Stoke-on-Trent.

She lived there alone after separating from fiance John Peake, 34, three months earlier. Stirling, of Gratton Road, Bucknall, Stoke-on-Trent, is accused of murdering the midwife at Baddeley Green, the area of Stoke where Samantha owned a house. Jonas Hankin QC, prosecuting, told the court the ongoing investigation into the midwife's death was 'complex' and meant a provisional trial date early in 2019 was unlikely to remain in place. 2.6k shares A preliminary post-mortem examination did not reveal any gunshot, stab or penetrating wounds, and further analysis of neck bones was due to be carried out, Judge Michael Challinor QC was also told. CCTV footage, telephone evidence and automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) data are also set to form part of the evidence at trial. Defence barrister Samina Rasid made no application for bail and Stirling was not required to enter any plea. He was remanded in custody to appear at Northampton Crown Court for a plea hearing on October 5.

His trial date was also provisionally set for February 4 next year, but the judge told him that the complexities of the case meant that date was unlikely to remain fixed. Michael Stirling (left) has been charged while Stephen Stirling (right) has been bailed Two men, including Stirling's father Stephen, 60, have been arrested on suspicion of assisting an offender. They have been bailed pending further inquiries. The arrests come after Miss Eastwood told a hospital colleague she had been threatened in the period leading up to her disappearance. A source said: 'Samantha asked one of her colleagues to report it if she didn't turn up for work.

And that is what happened on the Friday night, that is why the police were called so quickly.' Miss Eastwood was last pictured on CCTV at 7.47am on Friday July 27, leaving Royal Stoke University Hospital after a night shift. Miss Eastwood and Mr Peake, who manages a steam railway, were together for seven years.

Before they separated, the couple saw the Stirlings socially. A neighbour said Stirling, who runs a fencing business, had built a summerhouse in Miss Eastwood's garden.

He was seen working there just two weeks ago. In a statement, her family thanked supporters for their efforts. An appeal to pay for her funeral has so far raised more than £10,000. Miss Eastwood's ex-partner Mr Peake and her sister Gemma returned to her house to lay a floral tribute yesterday afternoon. Accompanied by police liaison officers, they left a bouquet of sunflowers on the doorstep and spent time looking at other tributes.

Tributes have also been left at the hospital where she worked. Tearful colleagues could be seen embracing as they lay flowers. The fundraising page was set up by Beth Taylor. She said: 'Samantha was a lovely young woman who helped to bring so many lives into this world.

She had a bright future ahead of her.' Mothers whose babies she had helped deliver have also donated.

I rented a Ford Focus. It has all these screens, keypads and shit. There was one very large button labeled Radio. I pressed it and nothing happened.

Turns out that you had the press the much smaller button only labeled Vol to turn the radio on. Then there were these button on the center console, right in the middle and above the volume button. Left to tune down, right to tun up.right? It control the 'feature selection' on a screen on the dash. Tuning buttons were much smaller and in the upper right and only labeled with a left arrow and right arrow.

Then I looked down by the shifter. There, was a placard that said, 'Powered by Microsoft'. One of two shareware programs I ever purchased for was the far-too-generically-named 'Plug-In For Windows' by Plannet Crafters. First introduced in September 1992, it was a Start Menu-like interface for Windows 3.x, only without the Start button itself.

A right-click on the desktop would bring up the menu, optionally with nested folders. If Apple had any patents on the functionality, they should have nipped the menu-style interface in the butt long before Win95.

By the time Microsoft got a hold of it, it wa. The Apple menu wasn't quite the Start Menu.

It was similar in the sense that you could add programs in it to use it as an application launcher, but that was simply a consequence of the history of the Macintosh system software. Older versions of the system software placed device driver like desk accessories in the Apple menu.

With System 7, those desk accessories became normal applications and redesigned Apple menu was changed to take that into account. Indeed, I'd be surprised if Apple intended it to be used as a generic application launcher.

In contrast, the Start Menu was designed to contain every application on the system. This means that it was a genuine starting point, rather than a place to access commonly used applications. The designs even reflect that. With the Apple menu, you were given a menu with analogs to the old desk accessories and you had to add anything else yourself. With the Start Menu, you are given a menu that contains all of the applications on the system and you have to removed unwanted stuff yourself. There are a few differences. First, symlinks are a property of the filesystem.

This means that the normal filesystem APIs just work with them and you need special APIs for things that care about whether it's a link or not. In contrast, shortcuts are just another kind of file and everything that wants to follow them needs to know what the target is. Second, shortcuts contain a lot more information than just a path: they include the path to the destination file, an icon, the set of command-line arguments to pass, and some other flags. For example, I used to have a load of different shortcuts to the WinQuake (and, later, GLQuake) executable that all had different -game flags, for launching different mods. Many of them also had different icons, if the mod came with its own icon. You can't do that with symlinks.

The closest thing to symlinks on.NIX systems is freedesktop.org files. The Apple Menu inverts the Windows paradigm. Your Mac's desktop lists the apps installed in the filesystem (in fact the desktop is pretty much the root of the filesystem), the Apple Menu has your shortcuts. Whereas in Windows your desktop has your shortcuts, and the Start menu lists the apps installed in the filesystem. This is a consequence of how the two OSes started out.

MacOS was coded from the start as a GUI, so logically the desktop is the root of your filesystem. Windows was originally a shell running on DOS. So all your files were stored in the DOS filesystem, and originally the desktop just had shortcuts to your program and data files.

(OS X complicated this somewhat since it is now a GUI running on top of a modified version of BSD Unix.). This is a consequence of how the two OSes started out. MacOS was coded from the start as a GUI, so logically the desktop is the root of your filesystem. Windows was originally a shell running on DOS. So all your files were stored in the DOS filesystem, and originally the desktop just had shortcuts to your program and data files. On the mac, the desktop was always for doing work. On the PC, the desktop didn't exist until Windows 95 (ignoring non-Windows operating systems) because in Windows 3.1 it was just a place to store icons of running programs.

It wasn't a desktop as we know it, where you can put anything, like on the Mac. On the mac, the desktop was useful before the OS even had shortcuts, known as aliases. You could drag stuff there from your hard drive, and the system would remember that those icons were suppo. But now imagine if all your computer interaction before Win 3.1 had been on the command line? Well, it was not. Young'ums might think we're talking about the Paleozoic, but a lot of things already had happened before Windows.

Menus already existed in many forms and fashions, games had 'Options' screens and purported different paradigms for interaction. I vaguely remember games with scenes in which a desktop would have elements (photos, notes, etc.).

What didn't exist back then was interaction - and even. I have serious questions.

Any computer requires some training to use, or at least the willingness to experiment. In the Windows 3.1 era, this meant training people how to use a mouse to click on little pictures (i.e. Icons) or words (e.g. Buttons or menus). If you tried a similar experiment with a person from that era, only using the tablets of today, you'd have much the same problem since they wouldn't recognize how you interact with the system. Actually, compared to the s.

On the contrary. If you read the article, nobody said being a Boing propulsion scientist makes him all-knowing. The statement was as a response to a programmer's exclamation that 'our customers are morons!' The fact that he was a propulsion scientist is a strong indication that he was not a moron, thus making it reasonable to have a look to see if perhaps it wasn't the users there was a problem with. The goal of the project was to make Windows 'discoverable', in essence making it possible for the average person to figure out the most important things without attending a training course. A reasonable requirement for a commercial consumer product.

Apple Files Generic Trademark Application Hints At Night Shift For Mac 2017

The user tests demonstrated that Windows 3.1 wasn't discoverable. TFA is a good article, but The 'Start Button' was really a non-innovative, pedestrian multi-function, customizable menu button. I always marvel that people write thinkpieces about 'The Start Button' like it was some big tech innovation. The 'Start Button' was, essentially, just like any other 'Menu' option in computing every used, it just used a different word. And to that end, ontologically speaking, 'Start' was one of the most patronizing, over-simplified, dumbed down choices they could have made and still. Simple ideas are obvious. The key problem is that certain fields attracts certain types of people, and certain types of people have certain traits.

The start menu would have been obvious and intuitive to anyone who has ever dealt with people and people interactions. Sign-makers, psychologists, and pretty much everyone in the medical profession who attempts to understand how people work would have found the start menu incredibly obvious. Now the modern form over function UX crowd with their hipster indecipherable logos (3 dots for action, 3 lines for menu?) may be heading the wrong direction, but in a more general sense engineers have shown time and time again that on the whole we don't understand how people interact with things. Now the modern form over function UX crowd with their hipster indecipherable logos (3 dots for action, 3 lines for menu?) may be heading the wrong direction To be fair.

Apple Files Generic Trademark Application Hints At Night Shift For Mac Free

The largest smartphones are still tiny compared to the screen of any desktop computer. Also, your input is far less precise than keyboard and mouse. You have to make some sacrifices to design an interface suitable for that hardware.

But then came Windows 8, trying to put a mobile interface on the desktop. Now that was just idiotic. It's something that gives Danny Oran, the ex-Microsoft interface designer who holds the patents for the Windows 95 Start menu and taskbar, mixed feelings. 'In some ways, it's a little disappointing the same stuff is in there,' Oran says. It's a simple, intuitive interface element that everyone who uses a PC can easily figure out how to use.

Yeah, terrible tragedy, that. It's so old and crusty now, right?

Who cares if people are, you know, actually getting shit done with their PC. We need some hip, new paradigm that people have to re-learn all over again. Seriously, what the hell? Stop screwing up interfaces that are functional and familiar!

I wonder if the designer of the automobile's steering wheel would have 'mixed feelings' about that interface still being used in cars nearly a century later? The total change from the Windows 3.1 Start button to the subsequent Start buttons was making the Start menu a 2-column menu, putting the contents of the former Programs menu in the left pane and putting the rest of the Start menu items in the right pane. Oh, and making the initial view not show all the Programs items but only a subset, with an extra item at the bottom to show everything in the same form as it was under the Programs menu. As for Win3.1 being complicated, every secretary I knew managed to get a handle on it within a few days so it couldn't have been that complicated. The only people I know of who couldn't figure out Win3.1 are the ones who to this day need repeated reminders of how to get to anything that's not directly on their desktop, so methinks the problem doesn't lie in Windows.

You know that Windows 3.1 didn't actually have a Start Button, right? Windows 3.1 had 'Main', 'Acessories', 'Games', 'Start up', 'Application' and then any folders you made up. Kind of like an iOS or Android but better.

Damn, I kind of miss it! Add either a Windows 7-like taskbar on the bottom, or window changing similar to Gnome 3 to make up for the shortcomings. Also, good old times when you didn't need a GTK2/GTK3 theme expert to create a theme for you, instead you changed the color scheme and wallpaper (or wallpaper 'motif'!) Good freeware games and 'multimedia' games like M. Yeah, I'm thinking of the change from the Win95 Start menu to the Win7 one. Program Manager, however, acted pretty much as the Start button, you opened it and then navigated folders fairly logically (you wanted an application, you opened the Applications folder and looked there). The applications you used all the time you copied to the desktop so you'd have them at your fingertips.

Which, I've noticed, is still how people handle common applications, with 'copy it to the taskbar' a close second and the two '. Which, I've noticed, is still how people handle common applications, with 'copy it to the taskbar' a close second and the two 'pin' options vying for a distant third. I run Linux, Fedora 22 using the XFCE desktop.

My 'panel', which I call the 'taskbar' is at the bottom, as the Goddess intended. On that taskbar just to the left of the buttons showing my running applications/windows, are 4 quick launch buttons for my most commonly used applications, in the usual place for quick launch buttons. At the far right of the taskbar is the clock, the notification area is to the left of the clock. I use a specific theme for window decorations where the window title bars are blu.