Phrase used to describe piece of shit technology that is supposed to make one's life easier , however it malfunctions and only causes more strife thus defeating the purpose of it's very creation.

When a new piece of equipment is so good and so cutting edge that the term state of the art doesn't do it any justice.

1.)The absolute worst person you can imagine.

2.)At the cutting edge of being "a piece of shit."

3.)Someone who has the worst bummy swag imaginable.

Soon-to-be-obsolete.

Abrupt, matter-of-the-fact, no-holds-barred faceboooking

1. One of two citizens under the Constitution of the United States. The other is a citizen of the United States. (Slaughterhouse Cases: 83 U.S. 36, at p. 74 and p. 75 1873)

2. A corporation is not a 'citizen' within Const. U. S. art. 4, §2, providing that the “citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens OF the several states,” nor within the Fourteenth Amendment, §1. providing that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside, and that no state shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

2a. "Section 1770b has been several times considered by this court, and upheld to the full extent of its terms. It is enacted under the undoubted power of every state to impose conditions in absolute discretion upon granting the privilege of doing business in this state to any foreign corporation. Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. (U. S.) 168, 19 L. Ed. 357; Chicago T. & T. Co. v. Bashford, 120 Wis. 281, 97 N. W. 940. That power is not restrained by section 2, art. 4, of the federal Constitution, providing that the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens OF the several states, nor by section 1, Amend. 14, to that Constitution, providing that no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the Uni...

1. Recognized in the Constitution of the United States of America at Sec 1, Cla 1 of the 14th Amendment and Art IV, Sec 2, Cla 1.

2. Thus, in any State of the Union, there are two State citizens, a citizen of a State, under Art IV, Sec 2, Cla 1 of the Constitution, and also a citizen of a State (and a citizen of the United States), under Sec 1, Cla 1 of the 14th Amendment:

“The bill filed in the Circuit Court by the plaintiff, McQuesten, alleged her to be ‘a citizen of the United States and of the State of Massachusetts, and residing at Turner Falls in said State,’ while the defendants Steigleder and wife were alleged to be ‘citizens of the State of Washington, and residing at the city of Seattle in said State.’ “ Statement of the Case, Steigledger v. McQuesten: 198 U.S. 141 (1905).

“The averment in the bill that the parties were citizens of different States was sufficient to make a prima facie case of jurisdiction so far as it depended on citizenship.” Opinion, Id, at 142.

3. The only difference between them is that a citizen of a State, under Art IV, Sec 2, Cla 1 of the Constitution, is one born in a State of the Union; that is a native born citizen:

“Joseph A. Iasigi, a native born citizen of Massachusetts, was arrested, February 14, 1897, on a warrant issued by one of the city magistrates of the city of New York, as a fugitive from the justice of the State of Massachusetts.” Iasigi v. Van De Carr: 166 U.S. 391, at 392 (1897).