Vertaling en analyse van woorden door kunstmatige intelligentie ChatGPT
Op deze pagina kunt u een gedetailleerde analyse krijgen van een woord of zin, geproduceerd met behulp van de beste kunstmatige intelligentietechnologie tot nu toe:
- hoe het woord wordt gebruikt
- gebruiksfrequentie
- het wordt vaker gebruikt in mondelinge of schriftelijke toespraken
- opties voor woordvertaling
- Gebruiksvoorbeelden (meerdere zinnen met vertaling)
- etymologie
Daimlerchrysler$501699$ - vertaling naar nederlands
![Tornado ECR]] of the [[German Air Force]] in 1999](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:FilePath/AGM-88 and AIM-9 on Tornado.jpg?width=200 "Tornado ECR]] of the [[German Air Force]] in 1999")
![BK 117]]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:FilePath/D-HNWQ MBB BK-117 Polizei (7740187134).jpg?width=200 "BK 117]]")
![An [[ADAC]] [[Eurocopter EC135]], 2008](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:FilePath/Helicopter EC135 taking off from Bonn university clinic helipad.JPG?width=200 "An [[ADAC]] [[Eurocopter EC135]], 2008")
![Head-on view of a [[Dornier 228]]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:FilePath/QKD Do228.jpg?width=200 "Head-on view of a [[Dornier 228]]")
Wikipedia
SCO Group v. DaimlerChrysler was a lawsuit filed in the United States, in the state of Michigan. In December 2003, SCO sent a number of letters to Unix licensees. In these letters, SCO demanded that the licensees certify certain things regarding their usage of Linux. DaimlerChrysler, a former Unix user and current Linux user, did not respond to this letter. On March 3, 2004, SCO filed suit against DaimlerChrysler for violating their Unix license agreement, by failing to respond to the certification request made by SCO. The parties agreed to a stipulated dismissal order on December 21, 2004. The case was dismissed without prejudice, but if SCO wishes to pursue the timeliness claim again, it must pay DaimlerChrysler's legal fees since August 9. On December 29, 2004, SCO filed a claim of appeal notice. On January 31, 2005, the claim of appeal was dismissed.
