[jack-r-abbit]

> Legally, 'not guilty' is not equivalent to 'innocent'.

hmmm... if "innocent until proven guilty" holds true, then you remain innocent until you have been found guilty. If at the end of trial you have been found "not guilty" then you have not been found guilty, therefore are innocent.

[FuzzyDunlop]

That may be a valid assumption, but it's also a dangerous one. A court cannot make the same one (and pronounce people innocent) as it would, I would expect, make it extremely hard to get the same person back in court given new evidence (they're innocent, the court said it).

So it's a bit like hypothesis testing, where you don't expect your hypothesis to be proven correct, you just expect it not to be disproved. Thus, further testing can continue.

In summary, someone who isn't found guilty isn't always innocent.

[jack-r-abbit]

> A court cannot make the same one (and pronounce people innocent) as it would, I would expect, make it extremely hard to get the same person back in court given new evidence

The rules of Double Jeopardy already make it pretty damn hard to get a person back into court after being found "not guilty"... even with new evidence. (in the US anyway)

Plus, you don't need to be found innocent. You are innocent... right up until the point that you are found guilty.

[eridius]

You are not innocent. That would be a strange assertion before anything have been proven. You are presumed innocent.

[jack-r-abbit]

ok... you are presumed innocent... right up until the point that you are found guilty. Same difference.

[eridius]

Not really. If you really are innocent then no evidence can possibly change that. But if you're merely presumed innocent, then new evidence can prove your guilt.

And in the case of a civil suit there's no double jeopardy, so you can't even say it doesn't matter.

[jack-r-abbit]

true on that.

[neya]

>In summary, someone who isn't found guilty isn't always innocent.

Right now, you aren't guilty...so that means...ummm...

[Bro_Merch]

It's not 'not guilty' it's 'not /found/ guilty'. Maybe I /am/ guilty.

(Just making a point. I am getting a kick out of reading this thread. I own >15 apple devices and every one of them has duct tape over the apple logo because I think their legal b.s. is just that. B.S. In 2000 I was cool for being the Apple guy. Now I'm ashamed of it. I just honestly still believe they make superior products. Show me a non Apple laptop that I can pick up and will feel as solid and sleek as my 2011 MacBook Pro all the way down to the even weight distribution, that I can install Linux Mint on and have it Just Work an ill buy it tonight.)

[neya]

>Show me a non Apple laptop...blah blah blah

I have a Sony Vaio VGN FZ-21S. Its almost three and a half years old. When I bought it, it was the price of a Mac book pro. It had more performance, speed, features than a Mac book pro back then, including a Blu-Ray drive. It has survived huge amounts of mis-handling. I've dropped it into places where no one would even imagine - Sea (saline water), Rain water puddles, etc. and it still works fine.

I'm a film maker. I use it for heavy rendering, sometimes it is turned on without even a restart for several weeks or even months. It came with a defective GPU chipset and the entire motherboard was replaced free of cost even after its warranty period.

My friend has an Apple Mac book pro. I borrowed it once to do some comparisons. I will put up a blog post on this soon, but here's what you need to know:

1) ALL 2011 Apple Mac's have a shitty display contrast, compared to what this particular Sony Vaio gives you. The color and the contrast is beautiful on a Sony. Period. FYI - I'm a graphic/Web designer too, and this is really important for my work.

2) Apple charges you for anything that is not under warranty. But in my case (and millions of other Sony owners') Sony didn't charge us a single penny.

3) I compose music too. My Sony has an inbuilt ASIO chipset. The sound quality from this chipset is nothing like what you've heard before (assuming you've owned only Apple products). Its amazing. I compared it with the MB pro. Shit it was. Just like their iPods (If you argue the iPod has a better sound quality, then please stop reading right here. I don't want to argue with you anymore)

4) The MB pro heats like hell. I can't render something for more than 6-7 hours. BS. I might as well use it to fry an omlet.

Its ok to like Apple and its not my problem if you like Apple or not. But don't manipulate facts to suit your argument.

Because, this statement:

>Show me a non Apple laptop that I can pick up and will feel as solid and sleek as my 2011 MacBook Pro

is not accurate, heavily manipulated and is utter bullshit. It clearly indicates how biased you are and how ignorant you are about the pace at which the rest of the non-apple gadgets improve, day-by-day, which is atleast thrice as fast as how Apple's gadgets improve.

To answer your original question - >Show me a non Apple laptop that I can pick up and will feel as solid and sleek as my 2011 MacBook Pro

Please check out the Laptop sections of Sony, Toshiba, Dell, Asus, Fujitsu, Lenovo and HP from their corresponding websites.

Have a nice day.

[FuzzyDunlop]

I might be guilty of something else that is relevant but not previously known?

[ralfn]

You should not be able to sue somebody over and over again.

Yes, someone who isnt guilthy isnt always innocent. But in this case the judge considered it poven that the designs were not (legally) stolen.