No, but not taking all of them shows dedication to your job and showing that you're a dedicated and hardworking employee helps in getting raises and promotions. These extra raises and promotions then end up giving people the impression that women are being discriminated against.
The whole "Women are being discriminated against in tech" schtick mostly stems the effects of gender differences like this. It's not just one thing, there's loads of other factors like how men (on average) put in more hours, take fewer sick days, are less likely to go on sabbaticals, more likely to actually ask for promotions and raises, both more likely to try to negotiate for pay and negotiate harder, actually have an education in the field, put up with a longer commute for better pay and, much in part due to an increase in the share of women entering the tech workforce over the last few years, have more experience.
Sadly all this doesn't really interest the people who push the discrimination schtick and they either ignore all of this or pretend like you're a misogynist if you dare to bring it up. The way I see it, the way they respond to it is something of a litmus test for people who bring it up. If they take it seriously and don't just dismiss it off hand they should be taken seriously, but if they start calling you a misogynist and dismiss it offhand it's clearly just an attempt at a shakedown.
Not if you don't factor in the effect of people not really knowing how the general consumer market works (in this case people don't realize that most of the Christmas sales are made in Q3 so Q4 will always see a drop-off in revenue) and short sellers, of which there are a lot of and some very big players, who always try to cause stock prices to come down when there's no reason for them to do so.
Seriously, the less you talk/think about stock prices and their fluctuations the better you're going to feel about it.
Ummm... How is this disproportionately targeting people of color? The summary claims this twice, but doesn't explain how why this is. Do people of color somehow end up with the exact same name and birth date than white people? Because there's plenty of very common anglo-saxon "white" names so there's bound to be plenty of white people who get hit with this.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not flat-out rejecting the idea that this system, which by the looks of it seems to have been originally designed to remove people who have moved out of state off the voter rolls rather than fight voter fraud, couldn't disproportionately affect people of color. However a two paragraph summary of an article on misuse of the system claiming that it disproportionately affects people of color in both paragraphs causes me to become a bit suspicious. I get the feeling this may be the same thing as when people try to fight hacking done by law enforcement, which is mostly used to catch child molesters, people who share child pornography and darknet drug dealers, as something that disproportionately targets people of color because people of color, being poorer, have older and thus less secure devices than white, and more affluent, people.
In my experience an unusually large portion of people who end up in web development end up there not because they have an academic or even hobbyist background, but because they went to one of those "bootcamp" type affairs. Bootcamps may be great for getting people started, but because of the serious limitations on how much you're going to be able to teach someone in a couple of weeks/months who at the start of the program couldn't code their way out of a paper bag these people are going to be entering the tech workforce with very limited skills.
Where this turns from something that just annoys more competent engineers and code inspection/quality assurance is when you factor in the fact that companies don't train their employees anymore. If an employee is clueless when they start the job, they're going to be just as clueless when they move on because of being fired or quitting on their own accord.
Other than that there's also the way webdev draws in an unusually large amount of people who used to work on completely different stuff who at worst haven't even gone trough anything like the bootcamps and can actually be even more clueless than your usual bootcamp muppets. However unlike the webdev muppets, they tend to pick up on things faster, but being (namely) more experienced they get to practice their ineptitude and writing serious security deficiencies into the codebase a lot quicker.
Why wasn't the USB key in question a high security, hardware encrypted device?
My guess is that it's either because somebody copied work files onto their personal USB drive despite copying files off the agency network onto personal devices being banned but or then management trusted that employees would treat USB drives containing classified documents with the same care they treat paper media copies of the same documents.
Either way, at the very least somebody needs to start looking for a new line of work because this is just something which should never happen, plain and simple.
Can't say I'm particularly surprised as it seems like the only government-run places where you'll see even halfway decently managed IT is in agencies that handle state secrets relating to subjects like defense and diplomacy. Everywhere else IT tends to be thoroughly mismanaged due to incompetent management, interference from non-IT management, insufficient budget to do the job properly or a combination of these.
Not that using XP, an OS known to be thoroughly insecure by design, after official support ended helped matters. You'd have hoped that they would have at least migrated to Windows 7, which is a massive step forwards in terms of security, but it seems like there was a massive organizational failure for the NHS to have found themselves with their pants down like this.
If this had been going on during their IPO, which took place a year before the misreporting began, then that probably would have been a pretty clear cut case of securities fraud. It's less obvious now, but I wouldn't be all that surprised if a competent prosecutor could be able to get a conviction for securities fraud out of this and how long it went on for.
Still, it makes their claim of a 14% growth in active users pretty suspicious...
This morning, I watched how the CFO of GM argued how GM is a tech company.
You may now view GM as a tech company, but the development and production of something as complicated as a modern day car is a pretty damn technical. Sure, there are still a lot of components that aren't electronically controlled, but cars have for decades been full of parts that qualify as "tech industry" parts.
The median age of a Fox News viewer is dead five years.
Seems like somebody doesn't really understand averages or statistics in general... The fact that the worst case average age of Fox News viewers is 69 really doesn't mean half of them will be dead when the life expectancy for their main (male) viewer group is 77-79 depending on the source. What really matters is their ability to add new viewers to replace those dying of old age and seeing how much more successful they've so far been at finding older viewers I can't think of any reason why they'd be less successful at replacing dying viewers than other outlets.
I also love how the Atlantic article acts like Fox News is alone if the partisan bullsh*t peddling when it's more than well known to not be alone on that front, albeit being something of a pioneer in the field and the worst offender (thou not by much of a margin). Let's not forget that The Atlantic follows the longstanding tradition of American media outlets being the personal mouthpieces of multi-millionaires in other industries. Henry Ford used his The Dearborn Independent to espouse his views, including the anti-Semitic ones, the same way Laurene Powell-Jobs, Steve Jobs' widow, uses The Atlantic to espouse her views.
Is it just me or does a price cut that big this close to launch sound an awful lot like they made a lot more devices than they could sell and are now trying to clear out inventory? Nice for those looking to buy a high end android device cheap, but can't be all that great for their bottom line.
Price cuts like this are pretty much always the result of companies overstating demand at the initial price and often include a warehouse full of unsold inventory. They either plan on making back the money on connected revenue streams (like games and peripherals for consoles) or then just want to clear inventory to stay liquid. Regardless of their reasons for selling stuff at a loss, the value of this inventory would eventually have to at least partly be written off as you can never keep products in inventory for a long time and expect to sell it at the original price.
Amazon may drive up tech wages, but those were high to begin with and the vast majority of the workforce isn't in the tech workforce. These higher paid tech workers can afford to pay way more for their housing and other services, which causes prices for these things to go up. For tech workers this may not be a problem, but for everyone else it is when they the cost of living goes up and they can't afford to live where they used to be able to and have to move further way from work, friends and relatives because of increased living expenses.
Only solution I see to this is increasing income tax progression to the point where tech workers don't have much more disposable income than everyone else and thus can't cause prices on everything to go up, but this is the U.S and that's never going to happen. Keeping the redistribution of wealth to an absolute minimum is practically a religion.
Don't even try to talk about the Amazon online store employees because they aren't well paid and they destroy jobs elsewhere due to the way online shopping is way more more labor effective.
Seems like China is really going out of it's way to clamp down on dissidents, even going as far as to silence people on platforms that aren't even accessible in the country. Sounds to me like it's mostly a wasted effort that only emboldens the person being persecuted and his mostly foreign and expat followers. Then again if you how the remember the Tiananmen Square protests* ended or what they've been doing to Falun Gong followers** this this probably isn't even close to China going all out in stamping something out.
Using that logic, shouldn't almost every American get his sorry ass out of the country?
I think the difference between dreamers and most americans is that dreamers were born outside of the country and brought illegally into the country as children. Most americans on the other hand, which includes most immigrant kids, both those of legal and illegal parents, were born in the U.S so they've been legal since birth thanks to everyone born in the U.S being granted citizenship upon birth. This is actually something unique to the americas as everywhere else in the world at least one of the parents to be a citizen for a child born there to be granted citizenship.
Don't get me wrong, I'm most definitely not a fan of Trump or most of his followers, but this is one of those (few) cases where something he does actually makes at least some amount of sense. If congress can't pass a more permanent solution in time Trump killing the U.S Dream Act obviously runs a serious risk of causing a lot of people a lot of grief due to circumstances outside of their control. However there's also the rule of law question as the law was in some sense a form of immigration amnesty to people who broke the immigration laws.
Once again, don't get me wrong. I sympathise with dreamers, but at the same time I can understand why people want them deported in the first place. If I had to chose a solution to this problem, which has existed for decades and never been properly solved, I'd implement something similar to the Dream Act except with proper citizenship waiting for them at the end being on the straight and narrow for a few years.
I think you're running a bit of a strawman there and you may not even realize it yourself... Nobody has said that all older workers are dinosaurs, just that dinosaurs are older workers and the latter doesn't imply the former. Sure, there's plenty of older workers who are just as ready to improve themselves as someone right out of college, but people who think they're at a point where they don't need to improve or change anything about the way they do things are pretty much exclusively older workers.
Maybe I'm biased, but there's really no inherent reason to keep people who refuse to even try to improve and adopt new and potentially better ways of doing things. A bit of skepticism towards changes that aren't genuinely necessary is always in order, but I've never encountered a situation where you had to engineer around outdated tech or ways of doing things because of a younger worker. It's always the older people who suggest old fashioned and expensive solutions to problems when there's new and cheaper solutions that do the same job just as well or better.
I'm not sure there's any good reason, other than the bragging rights, for the kinds of organizations behind the big corporate breaches over the last few years to hack them when they're just going to end up competing with Facebook themselves in actually selling that data. No point in buying that data from an illegitimate source when you can get the exact same data from a perfectly legitimately from the original source.
This was the first thing that sprang to my mind when I read that he claims he was fired for being disabled and HR thinking he couldn't do the job he was fired for. Tesla being in very busy with getting their first proper volume production car into full production also gives this thing more than a whiff of someone trying shake them down for a settlement rather than a real grievance. The U.S may have lax worker protection laws compared to western Europe, but if there's one thing they do protect workers on the grounds of it's disabilities so any HR department that fires someone simply because of their disabilities is either stupid or deliberately trying to get the company intro serious trouble.
Only way this makes any kind of sense is that either he's trying to shake them down for a cash settlement at a time when they don't have the time for another public lawsuit or that he was disabled enough not to be capable of doing the job he was hired for and simply lied about it or kept it secret when he was hired (i.e he got himself hired hired with express purpose of being fired). What he's describing in his lawsuit just sounds too ludicrous to be believable and they've already had one cash settlement shakedown lawsuit this year.
Now is it just me, or does the talk about focus group testing sound an awful lot like the publisher decided to convert the game from something designed by professionals to something designed by committee?
I mean the game was being directed by Amy Henning of Uncharted fame and seemed to be much in the same vein as the games she'd worked on before being ousted from Naughty Dog so it's pretty clear that EA's management was originally looking to make a Star Wars themed Uncharted game, but it seems like they decided to go with what the committee said instead.
I'm not sure dumping a particular vendor because of their country they operate out of is all that useful when there's already been at least one major breach trough the antivirus software by tricking it into downloading malicious updates from the attacker's own servers. The perpetrator of this particular hack was North Korea, but we know that there's at least half a dozen other countries, on both sides of the old iron curtain (which seems to be going up again), so you're never going to be fully safe from breaches using your choice of antivirus software.
Sure, you can use a vendor like F-Secure that operates from a country where the laws don't even allow for this kind of thing, either by request by the government of the country or by the request of a foreign government, but all that really does is increase the skill and effort barrier to pull off a breach using anti-virus software.
You clearly didn't pay all that much attention when Jobs was still running the company because they did pretty much the same thing back then...
Not only did they start the trend of slimming down the IO under Jobs, removing things people used was more or less tradition with Jobs. People complained the exact same way you're doing right now when Apple decided not to include a built-in floppy drive in the original iMac. They also complained the same way when Apple removed the CD drives along with built-in FireWire and Ethernet ports from the Macbook Pro line.
Did you pay any attention at all when he locked himself into the embassy? He never went there because he had an active extradition request on himself, but because of the real risk that if he's arrested, the U.S is going to put in an extradition request, apply pressure to bypass the normal procedures to deny him any kind of due process (which the U.S has the ability to do) and finally stage a similar sham of a trial that Manning got. Try to remember that before and after locking himself into the embassy U.S intelligence did their best to try to wiretap him using, amongst other things, a stingray-type device (which they forgot to re-configure for him so it initially showed up as a south american carrier's base station in the middle of London) meaning that they clearly were looking for cause to extradite him.
With another autocrat in the white house you can't exactly blame him for not daring to come out yet...
Commodore very well could have shipped broken Amigas to make up for not being able to produce enough machines for Christmas, but Herd specifically talked about Commodore doing that with Commodore 64s (he left before the Amiga was launched).
Slashdot Mirror
No, but not taking all of them shows dedication to your job and showing that you're a dedicated and hardworking employee helps in getting raises and promotions. These extra raises and promotions then end up giving people the impression that women are being discriminated against.
The whole "Women are being discriminated against in tech" schtick mostly stems the effects of gender differences like this. It's not just one thing, there's loads of other factors like how men (on average) put in more hours, take fewer sick days, are less likely to go on sabbaticals, more likely to actually ask for promotions and raises, both more likely to try to negotiate for pay and negotiate harder, actually have an education in the field, put up with a longer commute for better pay and, much in part due to an increase in the share of women entering the tech workforce over the last few years, have more experience.
Sadly all this doesn't really interest the people who push the discrimination schtick and they either ignore all of this or pretend like you're a misogynist if you dare to bring it up. The way I see it, the way they respond to it is something of a litmus test for people who bring it up. If they take it seriously and don't just dismiss it off hand they should be taken seriously, but if they start calling you a misogynist and dismiss it offhand it's clearly just an attempt at a shakedown.
I'm pretty sure their idea of "freedom" is just the ability for them to be able to do anything practically anything they want.
Stupid, I know, but the freedom for corporations to f*ck people over technically qualifies as a form of freedom.
It really makes no sense.
Not if you don't factor in the effect of people not really knowing how the general consumer market works (in this case people don't realize that most of the Christmas sales are made in Q3 so Q4 will always see a drop-off in revenue) and short sellers, of which there are a lot of and some very big players, who always try to cause stock prices to come down when there's no reason for them to do so.
Seriously, the less you talk/think about stock prices and their fluctuations the better you're going to feel about it.
Ummm... How is this disproportionately targeting people of color? The summary claims this twice, but doesn't explain how why this is. Do people of color somehow end up with the exact same name and birth date than white people? Because there's plenty of very common anglo-saxon "white" names so there's bound to be plenty of white people who get hit with this.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not flat-out rejecting the idea that this system, which by the looks of it seems to have been originally designed to remove people who have moved out of state off the voter rolls rather than fight voter fraud, couldn't disproportionately affect people of color. However a two paragraph summary of an article on misuse of the system claiming that it disproportionately affects people of color in both paragraphs causes me to become a bit suspicious. I get the feeling this may be the same thing as when people try to fight hacking done by law enforcement, which is mostly used to catch child molesters, people who share child pornography and darknet drug dealers, as something that disproportionately targets people of color because people of color, being poorer, have older and thus less secure devices than white, and more affluent, people.
In my experience an unusually large portion of people who end up in web development end up there not because they have an academic or even hobbyist background, but because they went to one of those "bootcamp" type affairs. Bootcamps may be great for getting people started, but because of the serious limitations on how much you're going to be able to teach someone in a couple of weeks/months who at the start of the program couldn't code their way out of a paper bag these people are going to be entering the tech workforce with very limited skills.
Where this turns from something that just annoys more competent engineers and code inspection/quality assurance is when you factor in the fact that companies don't train their employees anymore. If an employee is clueless when they start the job, they're going to be just as clueless when they move on because of being fired or quitting on their own accord.
Other than that there's also the way webdev draws in an unusually large amount of people who used to work on completely different stuff who at worst haven't even gone trough anything like the bootcamps and can actually be even more clueless than your usual bootcamp muppets. However unlike the webdev muppets, they tend to pick up on things faster, but being (namely) more experienced they get to practice their ineptitude and writing serious security deficiencies into the codebase a lot quicker.
Why wasn't the USB key in question a high security, hardware encrypted device?
My guess is that it's either because somebody copied work files onto their personal USB drive despite copying files off the agency network onto personal devices being banned but or then management trusted that employees would treat USB drives containing classified documents with the same care they treat paper media copies of the same documents.
Either way, at the very least somebody needs to start looking for a new line of work because this is just something which should never happen, plain and simple.
Can't say I'm particularly surprised as it seems like the only government-run places where you'll see even halfway decently managed IT is in agencies that handle state secrets relating to subjects like defense and diplomacy. Everywhere else IT tends to be thoroughly mismanaged due to incompetent management, interference from non-IT management, insufficient budget to do the job properly or a combination of these.
Not that using XP, an OS known to be thoroughly insecure by design, after official support ended helped matters. You'd have hoped that they would have at least migrated to Windows 7, which is a massive step forwards in terms of security, but it seems like there was a massive organizational failure for the NHS to have found themselves with their pants down like this.
If this had been going on during their IPO, which took place a year before the misreporting began, then that probably would have been a pretty clear cut case of securities fraud. It's less obvious now, but I wouldn't be all that surprised if a competent prosecutor could be able to get a conviction for securities fraud out of this and how long it went on for.
Still, it makes their claim of a 14% growth in active users pretty suspicious...
This morning, I watched how the CFO of GM argued how GM is a tech company.
You may now view GM as a tech company, but the development and production of something as complicated as a modern day car is a pretty damn technical. Sure, there are still a lot of components that aren't electronically controlled, but cars have for decades been full of parts that qualify as "tech industry" parts.
The median age of a Fox News viewer is dead five years.
Seems like somebody doesn't really understand averages or statistics in general... The fact that the worst case average age of Fox News viewers is 69 really doesn't mean half of them will be dead when the life expectancy for their main (male) viewer group is 77-79 depending on the source. What really matters is their ability to add new viewers to replace those dying of old age and seeing how much more successful they've so far been at finding older viewers I can't think of any reason why they'd be less successful at replacing dying viewers than other outlets.
I also love how the Atlantic article acts like Fox News is alone if the partisan bullsh*t peddling when it's more than well known to not be alone on that front, albeit being something of a pioneer in the field and the worst offender (thou not by much of a margin). Let's not forget that The Atlantic follows the longstanding tradition of American media outlets being the personal mouthpieces of multi-millionaires in other industries. Henry Ford used his The Dearborn Independent to espouse his views, including the anti-Semitic ones, the same way Laurene Powell-Jobs, Steve Jobs' widow, uses The Atlantic to espouse her views.
I bet the next step is copy Trump's inauguration debacle and claim they got just as many subscribers as Netflix.
Is it just me or does a price cut that big this close to launch sound an awful lot like they made a lot more devices than they could sell and are now trying to clear out inventory? Nice for those looking to buy a high end android device cheap, but can't be all that great for their bottom line.
Price cuts like this are pretty much always the result of companies overstating demand at the initial price and often include a warehouse full of unsold inventory. They either plan on making back the money on connected revenue streams (like games and peripherals for consoles) or then just want to clear inventory to stay liquid. Regardless of their reasons for selling stuff at a loss, the value of this inventory would eventually have to at least partly be written off as you can never keep products in inventory for a long time and expect to sell it at the original price.
Amazon may drive up tech wages, but those were high to begin with and the vast majority of the workforce isn't in the tech workforce. These higher paid tech workers can afford to pay way more for their housing and other services, which causes prices for these things to go up. For tech workers this may not be a problem, but for everyone else it is when they the cost of living goes up and they can't afford to live where they used to be able to and have to move further way from work, friends and relatives because of increased living expenses.
Only solution I see to this is increasing income tax progression to the point where tech workers don't have much more disposable income than everyone else and thus can't cause prices on everything to go up, but this is the U.S and that's never going to happen. Keeping the redistribution of wealth to an absolute minimum is practically a religion.
Don't even try to talk about the Amazon online store employees because they aren't well paid and they destroy jobs elsewhere due to the way online shopping is way more more labor effective.
Seems like China is really going out of it's way to clamp down on dissidents, even going as far as to silence people on platforms that aren't even accessible in the country. Sounds to me like it's mostly a wasted effort that only emboldens the person being persecuted and his mostly foreign and expat followers. Then again if you how the remember the Tiananmen Square protests* ended or what they've been doing to Falun Gong followers** this this probably isn't even close to China going all out in stamping something out.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Using that logic, shouldn't almost every American get his sorry ass out of the country?
I think the difference between dreamers and most americans is that dreamers were born outside of the country and brought illegally into the country as children. Most americans on the other hand, which includes most immigrant kids, both those of legal and illegal parents, were born in the U.S so they've been legal since birth thanks to everyone born in the U.S being granted citizenship upon birth. This is actually something unique to the americas as everywhere else in the world at least one of the parents to be a citizen for a child born there to be granted citizenship.
Don't get me wrong, I'm most definitely not a fan of Trump or most of his followers, but this is one of those (few) cases where something he does actually makes at least some amount of sense. If congress can't pass a more permanent solution in time Trump killing the U.S Dream Act obviously runs a serious risk of causing a lot of people a lot of grief due to circumstances outside of their control. However there's also the rule of law question as the law was in some sense a form of immigration amnesty to people who broke the immigration laws.
Once again, don't get me wrong. I sympathise with dreamers, but at the same time I can understand why people want them deported in the first place. If I had to chose a solution to this problem, which has existed for decades and never been properly solved, I'd implement something similar to the Dream Act except with proper citizenship waiting for them at the end being on the straight and narrow for a few years.
I think you're running a bit of a strawman there and you may not even realize it yourself... Nobody has said that all older workers are dinosaurs, just that dinosaurs are older workers and the latter doesn't imply the former. Sure, there's plenty of older workers who are just as ready to improve themselves as someone right out of college, but people who think they're at a point where they don't need to improve or change anything about the way they do things are pretty much exclusively older workers.
Maybe I'm biased, but there's really no inherent reason to keep people who refuse to even try to improve and adopt new and potentially better ways of doing things. A bit of skepticism towards changes that aren't genuinely necessary is always in order, but I've never encountered a situation where you had to engineer around outdated tech or ways of doing things because of a younger worker. It's always the older people who suggest old fashioned and expensive solutions to problems when there's new and cheaper solutions that do the same job just as well or better.
I'm not sure there's any good reason, other than the bragging rights, for the kinds of organizations behind the big corporate breaches over the last few years to hack them when they're just going to end up competing with Facebook themselves in actually selling that data. No point in buying that data from an illegitimate source when you can get the exact same data from a perfectly legitimately from the original source.
This was the first thing that sprang to my mind when I read that he claims he was fired for being disabled and HR thinking he couldn't do the job he was fired for. Tesla being in very busy with getting their first proper volume production car into full production also gives this thing more than a whiff of someone trying shake them down for a settlement rather than a real grievance. The U.S may have lax worker protection laws compared to western Europe, but if there's one thing they do protect workers on the grounds of it's disabilities so any HR department that fires someone simply because of their disabilities is either stupid or deliberately trying to get the company intro serious trouble.
Only way this makes any kind of sense is that either he's trying to shake them down for a cash settlement at a time when they don't have the time for another public lawsuit or that he was disabled enough not to be capable of doing the job he was hired for and simply lied about it or kept it secret when he was hired (i.e he got himself hired hired with express purpose of being fired). What he's describing in his lawsuit just sounds too ludicrous to be believable and they've already had one cash settlement shakedown lawsuit this year.
Now is it just me, or does the talk about focus group testing sound an awful lot like the publisher decided to convert the game from something designed by professionals to something designed by committee?
I mean the game was being directed by Amy Henning of Uncharted fame and seemed to be much in the same vein as the games she'd worked on before being ousted from Naughty Dog so it's pretty clear that EA's management was originally looking to make a Star Wars themed Uncharted game, but it seems like they decided to go with what the committee said instead.
I'm not sure dumping a particular vendor because of their country they operate out of is all that useful when there's already been at least one major breach trough the antivirus software by tricking it into downloading malicious updates from the attacker's own servers. The perpetrator of this particular hack was North Korea, but we know that there's at least half a dozen other countries, on both sides of the old iron curtain (which seems to be going up again), so you're never going to be fully safe from breaches using your choice of antivirus software.
Sure, you can use a vendor like F-Secure that operates from a country where the laws don't even allow for this kind of thing, either by request by the government of the country or by the request of a foreign government, but all that really does is increase the skill and effort barrier to pull off a breach using anti-virus software.
You clearly didn't pay all that much attention when Jobs was still running the company because they did pretty much the same thing back then...
Not only did they start the trend of slimming down the IO under Jobs, removing things people used was more or less tradition with Jobs. People complained the exact same way you're doing right now when Apple decided not to include a built-in floppy drive in the original iMac. They also complained the same way when Apple removed the CD drives along with built-in FireWire and Ethernet ports from the Macbook Pro line.
Did you pay any attention at all when he locked himself into the embassy? He never went there because he had an active extradition request on himself, but because of the real risk that if he's arrested, the U.S is going to put in an extradition request, apply pressure to bypass the normal procedures to deny him any kind of due process (which the U.S has the ability to do) and finally stage a similar sham of a trial that Manning got. Try to remember that before and after locking himself into the embassy U.S intelligence did their best to try to wiretap him using, amongst other things, a stingray-type device (which they forgot to re-configure for him so it initially showed up as a south american carrier's base station in the middle of London) meaning that they clearly were looking for cause to extradite him.
With another autocrat in the white house you can't exactly blame him for not daring to come out yet...
Commodore very well could have shipped broken Amigas to make up for not being able to produce enough machines for Christmas, but Herd specifically talked about Commodore doing that with Commodore 64s (he left before the Amiga was launched).
It's somehow not interesting you, yet you still take the time to write multiple post about how you couldn't be bothered to actually watch the video.
Right...
Is it just me or has people having the attention of a gold fish become worryingly common these days?