 was rather draining mentally.

I think she might have let it go automatic since the mere act of controlling it from afar was enough to take a toll on her. That + Index Spell Intercept might have been too much to bear with.




However all of these are big assumptions! Don't take them to face value, just my conclusion.Head to work in an all-new avatar.
Head to work in an all-new avatar. Men can opt for a crisp shirt and tie with slim jeans and a comfortable overcoat while women flirt with androgyny in a suit worn with a flowy shirt.
Sweaters with jeans are the new cool.
Sweaters with jeans are the new cool, especially if you plan to sneak out of work for a quick bite with your lady.
Team up ankle-length boots with a chic dress.
Mid-day meeting? Team up ankle-length boots with a chic dress, bag and sunglasses, and you're all set to rock the boardroom.
Set the mood for the evening as you wind down from the week with a chequered shirt with jeans and a formal jacket. Women can alter their work look with ankle-length boots.Q: How to unhide drive? I have tried everything, searched for how to unhide the drive but nothing worked. Drive C has its drive #,letter and label as shown in cmd but it does not appear in the explorer/my computer.



A: *

*Start Disk Management (diskmgmt.msc) on your computer and take a closer look at your hard disk. Note the disk number and the partitions.

*Start DiskPart and select your disk: DISKPART> select disk 0

*List all partitions: DISKPART> list partition

*Now, select the hidden partition DISKPART> select partition 3 (Make sure its your C drive)

*DISKPART> detail partition and verify that it is hidden. 

Detail Parition Gives you detail of Partition as image mentioned below
Let me know the Type number:
Tune your Compass.
Destiny 2’s 15th season of content, Season of the Lost, is finally upon us Guardians as we move forward toward Year Five and the Witch Queen expansion just on the horizon. To get to that point in the story, Guardians will be tasked this season by aiding Queen Mara Sov in recovering her lost Techeuns from Ley Lines.
This means completing Astral Alignment Offensive activities and charging up your Wayfinder’s Compass that’s acquired at the end of the season’s prologue mission. You can upgrade your Wayfinder’s Compass, and unlock an additional chest at the end of Astral Alignment by using Parallax Trajectory.
What is Parallax Trajectory and how can I get it?
Parallax Trajectory is coordinate data that is used to tune the Wayfinder’s Compass and triangulate the position of lost Techeuns. To collect large quantities of Parallax Trajectory, you need to collect Ascendant Anchors that appear in the open world. These anchors are left by Techeuns to stitch together Ley Lines between the Ascendant Plane and our plane of existence.
They appear as a purplish crystal with a beam of light sticking straight up. Each anchor rewards the Guardian who collects it with 30 Parallax Trajectory. Once you’ve collected enough Anchors, you can enter the Shattered Realms of the Ascendant Plane via the new area in the H.E.L.M.
In the Shattered Realm, follow the glowing orbs to find the beacons, then activate two beacons by defeating all the combatants in the area. Once that’s done, go to a third beacon to align the first two, then defeat the Corrupted Techeun that appears. After that, you can free the lost Techeun to complete the activity. While you’re in the Shattered Realm, you can collect more Ascendant Anchors that appear there.
You can also collect Parallax Trajectory from completing strikes, Gambit and Crucible matches, and defeating powerful enemies.Appeal from Superior Court of Contra Costa County, No. 182141, Martin E. Rothenberg, Judge.
Richard Godino, Celia Ruiz and Breon, Galgani, Godino O'Donnell for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Danial J. McNamara, John Fioretta, McNamara, Houston, Dodge, McClure Ney, Joel Shawn and Richard M. Marx for Defendant and Respondent.
On December 6, 1982, the superior court for Contra Costa County granted respondent Wheatley-Jacobsen, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the case brought against it by appellant San Ramon Valley Unified School District. Appellant contends that the order of dismissal should be reversed because the trial court abused its discretion. We reject this contention and affirm the judgment.
On December 30, 1977, appellant filed a complaint against the general contractor (Wheatley-Jacobsen, Inc., hereafter respondents), architects, soil engineers and surety company who were involved in the construction of a high school gymnasium for appellant. The complaint alleged breach of contract for deficient architectural work, deficient engineering, and deficient construction and sought damages and declaratory relief.
On March 20, 1978, the defendant architects filed a motion asking the court to order arbitration and to stay the proceedings against them. On April 11, 1978, the trial court ordered arbitration between appellant and defendant architects and stayed the proceedings as to the architects. The arbitration proceedings did not commence until June 1982. The arbitration resulted in a settlement between appellant and defendant architects on November 8, 1982. The only action appellant took in prosecuting its claim against the remaining defendants was one request to produce documents and four depositions.
On November 9, 1982, more than four years and ten months after filing the original complaint, appellant moved to specially set the case for trial. On November 17, 1982, respondent filed a motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 583, subdivision (a), to dismiss the case for failure to bring the action to trial within two years. On November 23, 1982, the trial court granted the motion to dismiss, rendering the motion to specially set the case for trial moot. Appellant then filed its notice of appeal.
Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure. These dismissal sections were renumbered and reorganized by Statutes 1984, chapter 1705 and appear now in sections 583.110-583.410.
Because appellant moved to specially set the case for trial within five years of filing the complaint, we are not concerned here with the mandatory dismissal provision of section 583, subdivision (b). The only issue on appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing appellant's action for want of prosecution pursuant to section 583, subdivision (a). (1a) Before deciding this issue we must first determine the level of appellate scrutiny to be applied in reviewing a trial court's order of dismissal made pursuant to section 583, subdivision (a).
In the 1983 case of Wilson v. Sunshine Meat Liquor Co. (1983) 34 Cal.3d 554 [ 194 Cal.Rptr. 773, 669 P.2d 9], the Supreme Court discussed the standards that apply in reviewing motions to specially set a case for trial and motions to dismiss for lack of prosecution. (2) The high court, citing Beswick v. Palo Verde Hospital Assn. (1961) 188 Cal.App.2d 254 [ 10 Cal.Rptr. 314], held that the action of a court in passing upon a motion for early and preferential trial setting "`is tantamount to action upon a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute within the two-year period prescribed by section 583 of the Code of Civil Procedure; in each instance the motion is addressed to its sound legal discretion; the motivating factors in the exercise of that discretion would be pertinent to both motions; and its decision "will be disturbed only in cases of manifest abuse."'" ( Wilson v. Sunshine Meat Liquor Co., supra, 34 Cal.3d at p. 561, italics added, original italics omitted.) (1b) We read the last part of this sentence to mean that an appellate court should give the trial court's ruling on these motions substantial deference.
(4b) Here, as in Sunshine Meat, the record supports the trial court's decision. The declarations established that over a four-year ten-month period, the only pretrial discovery that appellant pursued with respect to the nonarchitect defendants was one request to produce documents and four depositions. The fact that appellant was participating in arbitration proceedings with the architects does not excuse its lack of diligence in prosecuting its case against the other defendants. Given the nature and complexity of the case, it would have been unjust to require respondents to prepare for trial in less than two months when appellant had the benefit of information learned through the arbitration proceedings to which respondents were neither invited, nor about which were they briefed. While appellant is correct in asserting that the trial court could have required appellant to fully disclose all information regarding the case to respondents as a condition of denying the 583, subdivision (a), motion, the prejudice in forcing respondents to trial on such quick and unexpected notice would still exist. Moreover, there is ample evidence in the record to support the trial court's ruling, and thus appellant has failed to affirmatively show error.
Respondents' notice of motion and motion to dismiss for failure to bring action to trial within two years discusses the facts relative to each of the criteria enumerated in the rule: