All I ever seem to hear is nuisances with those things. Reliability problems, abandonware, these takeovers for consolidating market share, insane money spent (on Apple ones) for crap battery/performance.
The 4K part at laptop sizes sounds like something I'd be willing to sacrifice, but otherwise it's a pretty cool idea as far as I'm concerned.
If you need a super-portable laptop, maybe the extra weight would be a hassle but if your primary portability is just going from location to location with minimal concern for the weight from car-office-hotel type trips then it would be a huge win.
I do client projects out of hotel rooms sometimes and will haul a spare monitor with me if I'm able to drive to the project. Even then it's a PITA, it doesn't pack well (I just wrap a towel around it so it won't die in the trunk), it's a bunch of extra cabling and power to deal with and the layout is always sub-optimal. If I have to fly it's basically a no-go because I don't have a shipping case for it nor do I want the extra luggage burden.
For some extra weight, this would solve all those annoyances and provide *3* screens in a very friendly layout with zero cabling hassle. It might even be worth it for every day use, as I can't imagine that ordinary 1080p panels would add a ton of extra weight.
Occasionally I get lucky and stay in a newish hotel with a LCD TV that knows what to do with a computer HDMI input *and* the desk layout works with as a secondary monitor. Home2 Suites was the last one where the desk was one of those IKEA-like things on casters and I could position the desk, laptop and TV into a useful combo platter. 1080 on a 42" TV is annoyingly large, so it loses about 1/3 of its practical value but makes up for it when its time for viewing movies.
Have you found a compelling way, though, to use your phone with tethering to provide broader network access, though?
I made a half-assed attempt, thinking it would be reasonable on a short-term basis to use it as failover interface with pfsense. The challenge I have is getting the tethering network accessible to my LAN. I rummaged through my collection of access points and couldn't get one that would attach as a bridging peer to the phone's internal access point.
Phone would show a connected hotspot device, but the APs would never gain an IP address.
We often stream two programs at once here, I work from home half the time supporting projects where I have to push ISOs/patches, and I barely hit 200 GB a month.
I can only guess this is a cell device tethered not just to one computer but possibly to a larger network where it is the sole source of Internet connectivity and moving data at nearly the throughput limit of the connection almost continuously.
I think if it were mobile it'd be a stretch to get that 200 GB, since you'd have to factor in periods of mobility where the mobile device itself was the only thing using data.
I don't know if its possible, but I find myself missing their old category approach sometimes. Especially if I'm looking for a set of websites with information generally surrounding a common topic, but not necessarily matching any specific search term or results.
Google has a kind of less than useful value searching on generic terms and doesn't seem to do a very good job of producing search results that list web sites associated with a topic.
Maybe Yahoo should have tried to re-invent their old school directory/category approach combining search and some kind of AI designed to organize information by topic in coherent ways.
What Mayer needed to do to be successful was to take the talent and the revenue and use it to create an entirely new business. Pulling all of the employees back into the office was part of her strategy for doing that, based on the theory that co-located people are more capable of generating innovative ideas (which is true, but "more capable" is not a guarantee of a result).
I think the idea of creating a new business out of it makes a ton of sense, but I think where Mayer personally ran aground was alienating her employees from day 1.
I think the evidence is pretty clear Mayer has genius level intelligence based on her education and her work at Google, but I also think she came in with a chip on her shoulder from Google you could see underneath the Superwoman cape she donned. Showing up and disrupting the work culture with an "arbeit macht frei" mindset poisoned the well from day 1.
The "I can work harder than you" attitude she pushed ended up seeming insulting to most people. I just don't think an extremely rich person who is also extremely well compensated and who thinks 80 hour work weeks are great can sell that idea to employees. Obviously they know she has the money to automate her entire non-work lifestyle, so it's basically sacrifice-free to her.
I also wonder if she chose the right approach to re-inventing Yahoo. I can't help but think that the old-school "curated index" might have been the basis of a new Yahoo. Google search is a technical triumph but I'm often surprised at how useless it is, especially if you goal is finding categories of web sites or knowledge that have relevance. I still find myself occasionally spending time digging into forums for their "sticky" posts that have a list of links or sites that some human has determined have coherent relevance on a topic.
I wonder if the right path might have been a variation on Apple's walled garden, but rather than walls, maybe it's a curated garden, an search/index site focused on culling the sewage out of the modern internet and leaving behind the useful information. But if the financial structure of the company is solely focused on Google-scale advertising then they were just doomed.
This isn't about the University not wanting to hire its own graduates, its about the University wanting to hire cheap foreigners for careers it trains students in.
Prospective students already have spoken about low employment outcomes, and flocked to high wage education tracks like business, law and engineering. This is why the entire liberal arts faculty shares the 2 oldest and worst buildings on campus and business, law and engineering have giant, new buildings.
I would question just how profitable "college" athletics actually is if it took into account hidden subsidies from the rest of the University, like security, sub-rate bonding authority, management and so on. I think college athletics economics are funny money, structured to show a "profit" by showing lots of high-profile income while masking quiet subsidies they obtain from the larger institution in the form of facilities, utilities and other ancillary services they obtain at discounts that only exist because they're necessary for the operation of the larger entity.
The internal empire refers to the internal administrators. How is a University administrator judged? Ultimately by the size of the departments, programs and staff they manage. They have an incentive to grow the areas and budgets which they manage as it increases their apparent abilities and responsibilities. None of these areas they control show profit-loss. And this same perverse motivation works up and down the staff.
The person hired to administer a specific program may have been hired to administer the program as the sole employee responsible. Well, they decide they could administer it better if they had a student worker. So their budget is increased to accommodate a student worker. Now their work space is too small, so they gain additional budget to take over adjacent office space. They find they could be even more efficient with a full-time employee rather than a cyclical student employee, but since student employment is considered a good, they get a FTE and a student employee. Now they have excess labor, so they sell their boss on expanding their program to include more services, presumably because it will provide better service to under-served segments. In the next budget cycle they petition for more office equipment or office space to perform the task more efficiently. Soon they find that they need more labor.
Ad nauseum, until they now control an empire, an entity with a substantial budget, office space, equipment and broad multi-service program (and likely ill-defined and overlapping with another empire, elsewhere on campus) that begins to be taken for granted. Nobody really questions what its purpose is anymore, and like any good bureaucracy, it's growth is beneficial to the people up the ladder who get to count ALL the budgets, facilities and employees as part of THEIR administration. Nobody loses by growing, everybody wins, and there is no financial accountability.
Between the constitution only applying to the Federal government and the 10th Amendment, I'm sure someone will give you a debate about whether the supremacy clause actually applies here.
Maybe we can organize a formal debate and get some Deep South states' rights folks to argue on behalf of the State of California, and then get some Prop 64 Marijuana Legalization folks to argue the Supremacy Clause/Federal Authority side to argue on behalf of IMDB, just to make it interesting. We can call it the "Having Your Birthday Cake and Eating It, Too" debate.
There's the other question whether IMDB is commercial speech, in which case it generally can be subject to greater regulation. Maybe Alan Dershowitz can give a talk exploring this side of the issue.
I think the reality is that there's too many forms which need filling out too often and auto-fill isn't going away, ever, so the answer is how to make it safer and more transparent to the user what info is being filled in.
At least with a user-initiated form-fill action supported with a confirmation dialog box with the fields & data to be filled prevents the most common mishaps of existing form-fill -- filling in the wrong data into the wrong fields or getting hidden fields filled with data they shouldn't have.
I'm not sure how much more complicated it is, either. You *could* make it complex with lots of feature-add-ons (varying profiles or form-fill templates), but at least then you're supplying more user control over what gets filled and where.
And the critics are also forgetting about the private label manufacturing of these things. My fridge says it's a Sears, but it's actually an LG and was cheaper than the equivalent LG at the time I bought it because of the way these things actually reach various sales channels and who's having what sale at what time.
If LG has the ability to make these things at a very competitive unit cost, the usual MBA thinking is to just buy them from LG and rebrand them versus upgrading their own factories.
And if LG integrates wifi functionality, they can just resell/rebrand that, too, to whoever is selling the fridge as their own -- voila, instant smart appliance capability with zero development cost and as the private label seller you don't really care if LG also gets the same customer data you do.
It will wind up that you just can't buy a fridge that doesn't have this functionality and getting any warranty support will be impossible if you haven't enabled all the "smart service" functionality.
The browser should place an "autofill" button on the toolbar or someplace off limits from any web site manipulation.
This button should open a dialog box listing all the fields to be filled with the data to be filled, with checkboxes to enable/disable filling certain fields and to edit the data that is submitted.
This would allow the user to be certain as to what form fields were filled and which ones weren't in a UI environment not controlled/manipulated by the web site.
Perhaps they could even extend it to create "profiles" of common field data that would allow you to choose from various sets of data (different addresses, phone numbers, etc) to fill in.
But they should make use of the browser-controlled autofill dialog mandatory and never fill web page fields unless the user interacted with the browser autofill dialog so that sites couldn't mine data through hidden fields or cause accidental autofills from taking place.
From a capitalist perspective, they are selling a product ("an education") in which the very promise is vocational advancement. Yet their own actions demonstrate they are selling a product which doesn't actually do what it claims.
State Universities also exist outside the realm of profit and loss and were established to accomplish a specific social goal -- advancing the practical arts and sciences outside the realm of the traditional liberal arts education. By pushing their own jobs overseas they seem to be undermining that as well.
If they need to save money to meet their operating costs and income, then why not cut costs elsewhere? So many have huge investments in athletics which kind of appear to be paid for by a handful of top tier revenue sports, but at my local University the athletics facilities (a block-sized tennis facility) seem to exceed what could be considered reasonable spending associated with those sports and also fails to take into account for most state Universities' ability to use their quasi-government status for bonding to obtain money for athletic facilities average students will never use.
Plus you can't tell me that any state University in the US couldn't cut a whole laundry list of internal "programs" that mostly exist to create internal empires. And that's without even asking many political questions as to which of these programs are really advocacy programs designed to push ideological agendas.
It's so funny how companies like Google or Microsoft or even Apple never seem to get really good at anything beyond what they're good at.
Apple managed to reinvent itself from computer company to mostly a smartphone maker, Google managed to do search/advertising and Android, and Microsoft managed Windows/Office/SQL but at the end of the day they just can't overcome the internal inertia of these products and become more than that.
Microsoft at least has the path to Azure, but it's really the same products sold as timesharing. Google throws money at everything, but even where things seem to sort of stick (ChromeOS) they never gain real traction.
What happens when Indian IT people in the US get scam computer virus calls from India? Does it create some kind of singularity that causes both of them to move to another dimension?
Or is it more like:
"I am calling from the Microsoft support center and I wish to tell you your computer has a virus"
"Nilesh? What are you doing? I thought you were going to work in the civil service section your family controls."
"Premal, since Modi has withdrawn the large rupee notes my uncle can no longer give me a job in the civil service and I must work at the call center and to tell you your computer has a virus."
Picture a person who has never yet been in a relationship yet feels attraction. Do you see any problem with them describing themselves with a sexual orientation, even though they have not consummated their choice by engaging in a relationship?
I imagine that the author feels attraction to both men and women and as such describes herself as bi, even though she has not yet had the opportunity to engage in a relationship with a man.
I buy that line of reasoning for someone who's 20 years old, but Rowe is what, late 20s - early 30s?
What does "not had the opportunity" really mean at that age? It sounds to me like a series of conscious decisions not to have that opportunity or an actual lack of interest.
I can completely understand why someone with any kind of "activist" bent to them would want to identify as bi. It's absolutely the safest political choice and prevents being boxed in ideologically.
This is totally off-topic, but how is it that there seem to be so many people who live their lives in an exclusively gendered way (ie, exclusively lesbian relationships, as in the quote) but then make the claim that they are actually bi?
Is it a political thing? Like being anything other than bi is somehow prejudicial or discriminatory, and even though they don't *really* have any interest in sex with whatever the other combination is.
Whenever I hear people pontificate about their sexuality it almost always seems to come up. They are "really" or "actually" bi but thusfar have only had heterosexual sex or homosexual sex. FWIW, it's almost always women, too. I think most often I've heard it from women who were practicing heterosexuals but insisted they were bi but just hadn't had a relationship with a woman. Only rarely have I heard a woman who was otherwise lesbian claim she was bi, but it's not unheard of.
Strangely of the gay men I've known, many have been unabashed about having sex with women without ever feeling like they had to identify as bi.
I don't really care one way or the other, but there seems to be so much insistence by some people that "they're really bi" that it feels like a political statement, not honesty.
My wife works in a business licensing IP and I hear some of the opposite side of the story. The nature of their product is such that it can't be made and distributed in any centralized way, so the business model is mostly licensing the product to producers who then participate in selling and marketing it locally under a common brand name.
Anyway, they occasionally get knocked off by producers. Sometimes its licensees who keep making it after their agreement expires, sometimes its producers who outright knock it off, making their own tooling.
They *could* sue all of them for patent infringement, but it's just not practical. In some cases the patent is close to expiration, in some cases its mostly a negotiating ploy to renew the license under more favorable terms.
Anyway, I would argue that it's not that simple to just "threaten to sue" -- you have to have a case you can win, it's expensive to bring even a winning lawsuit and it can have a chilling effect on other business partners who may see an eagerness to sue as a reason to not do business with you or to demand other concessions which could damage profitability.
And a lot of times if you do threaten, you have to follow through. Businesses are often run by egomanics who don't want to be pushed around, even when they're in the wrong. They'll spot a false threat from a mile away and will view failure to follow through accordingly.
I don't think it applies in the linked pictures, but I've heard the term used to describe women who aren't conventionally attractive and may actually have one or more features which are somewhat unattractive. Yet somehow the whole ends up being greater than the sum of its parts and they end up being attractive.
I often it boils down to the face/body duality. The girl with an unattractive face but great body, the girl with the so-so body but spellbinding face.
The actress Molly Parker is best example I can think of off the top of my head.
The baggage claim area is not a gun free zone. It's outside security and literally anyone from the street could come in with a gun, in addition to someone who had a gun in checked baggage. I don't know if this shooter had actually declared his gun or just put it into his checked luggage (I thought they scanned all checked luggage these days).
The "solution" to this has nothing to do with gun control or kevlar underpants and everything to do with mental health care.
This guy walked into an FBI field office claiming the government was trying to make him watch ISIS videos. They thought he was deranged, so they passed him off to local PD who got him run through whatever cheap mental health screening they use for nuts off the street and then he was set loose again.
The sad story here is that nobody has dime one to provide mental health services for a person claiming the government trying to make them watch videos. This is quite literally tinfoil hat territory, and because there was no money behind him (insurance or private dollars) he gets a social worker with a form designed to satisfy some lawyer's idea of liability. Just how might this have turned out differently if he had been seen by a psychiatrist, talked into a 7 day in-patient evaluation and possibly been given some medication (even if it was just xanax) to get him closer to normal -- or at least seen long enough by trained people to see if he had a more serious long term condition? This guy had been discharged for being a fuckup in the military, so chances are he had a long-term problem.
So many of these spree shooters are people walking around with sign around their necks that says "I HAVE SERIOUS MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS" and we just don't give a shit because nobody will pay for mental health care, so they just roam free. We're not even smart enough to pay for the low-end therapy where they just sedate him in-house for a few days, it's literally a rush to get them out the door before they cost somebody money.
I would say crap execution. There are times where mixed size multi-monitor setups work, but at normal-ish laptop display sizes, a secondary display significantly smaller than the main display is going to be mostly useless.
I'm surprised that nobody has marketed a DIY battery in the same form factor as a 12v car battery run by an array of 18650s with all the expected charging circuits and the ability to "rewire" around dead cells automatically.
Your standard car battery shell seems like it could hold a lot of 18650s.
18650s are the go-to cell for contemporary sub-ohm vaporizers because they can deliver the high current needed to drive a half-ohm or smaller coil at 25+ watts and you can swap out batteries easily.
The fixed-battery "pen" size vaporizers of the older generation used something else but their batteries weren't replaceable and they worked at basically whatever the float voltage was into 1.5-2.5 ohm coils.
The really insane high wattage vapers seem to use fixed battery devices and I don't know what's in them, but they seem to be very high capacity, something like 5000 mAh.
I thought the idea was to actually detonate the nuke on impact like a bunker buster, either providing deflection or deflection and break-up. The downside to breakup being a debris cloud of non-deflected pieces, the further hope that they'd be small enough to burn up in the atmosphere but could potentially be multiple strikes by surviving chunks.
You're making jokes about this, but how do we know that this isn't exactly what Google is most worried about?
I mean, if you were going to just hazard a wild guess based on the usual stereotypes you'd figure Google skews young and male in engineering but does better overall in gender when marketing and other soft skills positions are included. You could talk to anyone in technology and get this same mix described to you like the people involved were talking about the weather or the sun rising in the East. Just the way it is.
But when it comes to race and national origin, I'd guess they skew heavily Indian and Asian but extremely light on blacks.
That's a bad combination for this zeitgeist. Not hiring enough blacks exposes you to all the usual discrimination claims and I'm sure BLM would love a target like Google.
But the real zinger will be the heavy hiring of Indians and Chinese and they don't want Trump ranting on Twitter (a competing service!) about how they're not hiring Americans.
And if Trump had half a brain, he'd say that part of why blacks are doing poorly was that Google was hiring Indians over them. It's ludicrous, I know, but it's political genius because it deflects Trump's alt-right image and it pits blacks against Indians. It's classic divide and conquer.
Slashdot Mirror
All I ever seem to hear is nuisances with those things. Reliability problems, abandonware, these takeovers for consolidating market share, insane money spent (on Apple ones) for crap battery/performance.
Has it really been worth it?
The 4K part at laptop sizes sounds like something I'd be willing to sacrifice, but otherwise it's a pretty cool idea as far as I'm concerned.
If you need a super-portable laptop, maybe the extra weight would be a hassle but if your primary portability is just going from location to location with minimal concern for the weight from car-office-hotel type trips then it would be a huge win.
I do client projects out of hotel rooms sometimes and will haul a spare monitor with me if I'm able to drive to the project. Even then it's a PITA, it doesn't pack well (I just wrap a towel around it so it won't die in the trunk), it's a bunch of extra cabling and power to deal with and the layout is always sub-optimal. If I have to fly it's basically a no-go because I don't have a shipping case for it nor do I want the extra luggage burden.
For some extra weight, this would solve all those annoyances and provide *3* screens in a very friendly layout with zero cabling hassle. It might even be worth it for every day use, as I can't imagine that ordinary 1080p panels would add a ton of extra weight.
Occasionally I get lucky and stay in a newish hotel with a LCD TV that knows what to do with a computer HDMI input *and* the desk layout works with as a secondary monitor. Home2 Suites was the last one where the desk was one of those IKEA-like things on casters and I could position the desk, laptop and TV into a useful combo platter. 1080 on a 42" TV is annoyingly large, so it loses about 1/3 of its practical value but makes up for it when its time for viewing movies.
Have you found a compelling way, though, to use your phone with tethering to provide broader network access, though?
I made a half-assed attempt, thinking it would be reasonable on a short-term basis to use it as failover interface with pfsense. The challenge I have is getting the tethering network accessible to my LAN. I rummaged through my collection of access points and couldn't get one that would attach as a bridging peer to the phone's internal access point.
Phone would show a connected hotspot device, but the APs would never gain an IP address.
I kind of struggle to see how you'd do it at all.
We often stream two programs at once here, I work from home half the time supporting projects where I have to push ISOs/patches, and I barely hit 200 GB a month.
I can only guess this is a cell device tethered not just to one computer but possibly to a larger network where it is the sole source of Internet connectivity and moving data at nearly the throughput limit of the connection almost continuously.
I think if it were mobile it'd be a stretch to get that 200 GB, since you'd have to factor in periods of mobility where the mobile device itself was the only thing using data.
I don't know if its possible, but I find myself missing their old category approach sometimes. Especially if I'm looking for a set of websites with information generally surrounding a common topic, but not necessarily matching any specific search term or results.
Google has a kind of less than useful value searching on generic terms and doesn't seem to do a very good job of producing search results that list web sites associated with a topic.
Maybe Yahoo should have tried to re-invent their old school directory/category approach combining search and some kind of AI designed to organize information by topic in coherent ways.
What Mayer needed to do to be successful was to take the talent and the revenue and use it to create an entirely new business. Pulling all of the employees back into the office was part of her strategy for doing that, based on the theory that co-located people are more capable of generating innovative ideas (which is true, but "more capable" is not a guarantee of a result).
I think the idea of creating a new business out of it makes a ton of sense, but I think where Mayer personally ran aground was alienating her employees from day 1.
I think the evidence is pretty clear Mayer has genius level intelligence based on her education and her work at Google, but I also think she came in with a chip on her shoulder from Google you could see underneath the Superwoman cape she donned. Showing up and disrupting the work culture with an "arbeit macht frei" mindset poisoned the well from day 1.
The "I can work harder than you" attitude she pushed ended up seeming insulting to most people. I just don't think an extremely rich person who is also extremely well compensated and who thinks 80 hour work weeks are great can sell that idea to employees. Obviously they know she has the money to automate her entire non-work lifestyle, so it's basically sacrifice-free to her.
I also wonder if she chose the right approach to re-inventing Yahoo. I can't help but think that the old-school "curated index" might have been the basis of a new Yahoo. Google search is a technical triumph but I'm often surprised at how useless it is, especially if you goal is finding categories of web sites or knowledge that have relevance. I still find myself occasionally spending time digging into forums for their "sticky" posts that have a list of links or sites that some human has determined have coherent relevance on a topic.
I wonder if the right path might have been a variation on Apple's walled garden, but rather than walls, maybe it's a curated garden, an search/index site focused on culling the sewage out of the modern internet and leaving behind the useful information. But if the financial structure of the company is solely focused on Google-scale advertising then they were just doomed.
This isn't about the University not wanting to hire its own graduates, its about the University wanting to hire cheap foreigners for careers it trains students in.
Prospective students already have spoken about low employment outcomes, and flocked to high wage education tracks like business, law and engineering. This is why the entire liberal arts faculty shares the 2 oldest and worst buildings on campus and business, law and engineering have giant, new buildings.
I would question just how profitable "college" athletics actually is if it took into account hidden subsidies from the rest of the University, like security, sub-rate bonding authority, management and so on. I think college athletics economics are funny money, structured to show a "profit" by showing lots of high-profile income while masking quiet subsidies they obtain from the larger institution in the form of facilities, utilities and other ancillary services they obtain at discounts that only exist because they're necessary for the operation of the larger entity.
The internal empire refers to the internal administrators. How is a University administrator judged? Ultimately by the size of the departments, programs and staff they manage. They have an incentive to grow the areas and budgets which they manage as it increases their apparent abilities and responsibilities. None of these areas they control show profit-loss. And this same perverse motivation works up and down the staff.
The person hired to administer a specific program may have been hired to administer the program as the sole employee responsible. Well, they decide they could administer it better if they had a student worker. So their budget is increased to accommodate a student worker. Now their work space is too small, so they gain additional budget to take over adjacent office space. They find they could be even more efficient with a full-time employee rather than a cyclical student employee, but since student employment is considered a good, they get a FTE and a student employee. Now they have excess labor, so they sell their boss on expanding their program to include more services, presumably because it will provide better service to under-served segments. In the next budget cycle they petition for more office equipment or office space to perform the task more efficiently. Soon they find that they need more labor.
Ad nauseum, until they now control an empire, an entity with a substantial budget, office space, equipment and broad multi-service program (and likely ill-defined and overlapping with another empire, elsewhere on campus) that begins to be taken for granted. Nobody really questions what its purpose is anymore, and like any good bureaucracy, it's growth is beneficial to the people up the ladder who get to count ALL the budgets, facilities and employees as part of THEIR administration. Nobody loses by growing, everybody wins, and there is no financial accountability.
Between the constitution only applying to the Federal government and the 10th Amendment, I'm sure someone will give you a debate about whether the supremacy clause actually applies here.
Maybe we can organize a formal debate and get some Deep South states' rights folks to argue on behalf of the State of California, and then get some Prop 64 Marijuana Legalization folks to argue the Supremacy Clause/Federal Authority side to argue on behalf of IMDB, just to make it interesting. We can call it the "Having Your Birthday Cake and Eating It, Too" debate.
There's the other question whether IMDB is commercial speech, in which case it generally can be subject to greater regulation. Maybe Alan Dershowitz can give a talk exploring this side of the issue.
I think the reality is that there's too many forms which need filling out too often and auto-fill isn't going away, ever, so the answer is how to make it safer and more transparent to the user what info is being filled in.
At least with a user-initiated form-fill action supported with a confirmation dialog box with the fields & data to be filled prevents the most common mishaps of existing form-fill -- filling in the wrong data into the wrong fields or getting hidden fields filled with data they shouldn't have.
I'm not sure how much more complicated it is, either. You *could* make it complex with lots of feature-add-ons (varying profiles or form-fill templates), but at least then you're supplying more user control over what gets filled and where.
And the critics are also forgetting about the private label manufacturing of these things. My fridge says it's a Sears, but it's actually an LG and was cheaper than the equivalent LG at the time I bought it because of the way these things actually reach various sales channels and who's having what sale at what time.
If LG has the ability to make these things at a very competitive unit cost, the usual MBA thinking is to just buy them from LG and rebrand them versus upgrading their own factories.
And if LG integrates wifi functionality, they can just resell/rebrand that, too, to whoever is selling the fridge as their own -- voila, instant smart appliance capability with zero development cost and as the private label seller you don't really care if LG also gets the same customer data you do.
It will wind up that you just can't buy a fridge that doesn't have this functionality and getting any warranty support will be impossible if you haven't enabled all the "smart service" functionality.
The browser should place an "autofill" button on the toolbar or someplace off limits from any web site manipulation.
This button should open a dialog box listing all the fields to be filled with the data to be filled, with checkboxes to enable/disable filling certain fields and to edit the data that is submitted.
This would allow the user to be certain as to what form fields were filled and which ones weren't in a UI environment not controlled/manipulated by the web site.
Perhaps they could even extend it to create "profiles" of common field data that would allow you to choose from various sets of data (different addresses, phone numbers, etc) to fill in.
But they should make use of the browser-controlled autofill dialog mandatory and never fill web page fields unless the user interacted with the browser autofill dialog so that sites couldn't mine data through hidden fields or cause accidental autofills from taking place.
From a capitalist perspective, they are selling a product ("an education") in which the very promise is vocational advancement. Yet their own actions demonstrate they are selling a product which doesn't actually do what it claims.
State Universities also exist outside the realm of profit and loss and were established to accomplish a specific social goal -- advancing the practical arts and sciences outside the realm of the traditional liberal arts education. By pushing their own jobs overseas they seem to be undermining that as well.
If they need to save money to meet their operating costs and income, then why not cut costs elsewhere? So many have huge investments in athletics which kind of appear to be paid for by a handful of top tier revenue sports, but at my local University the athletics facilities (a block-sized tennis facility) seem to exceed what could be considered reasonable spending associated with those sports and also fails to take into account for most state Universities' ability to use their quasi-government status for bonding to obtain money for athletic facilities average students will never use.
Plus you can't tell me that any state University in the US couldn't cut a whole laundry list of internal "programs" that mostly exist to create internal empires. And that's without even asking many political questions as to which of these programs are really advocacy programs designed to push ideological agendas.
It's so funny how companies like Google or Microsoft or even Apple never seem to get really good at anything beyond what they're good at.
Apple managed to reinvent itself from computer company to mostly a smartphone maker, Google managed to do search/advertising and Android, and Microsoft managed Windows/Office/SQL but at the end of the day they just can't overcome the internal inertia of these products and become more than that.
Microsoft at least has the path to Azure, but it's really the same products sold as timesharing. Google throws money at everything, but even where things seem to sort of stick (ChromeOS) they never gain real traction.
What happens when Indian IT people in the US get scam computer virus calls from India? Does it create some kind of singularity that causes both of them to move to another dimension?
Or is it more like:
"I am calling from the Microsoft support center and I wish to tell you your computer has a virus"
"Nilesh? What are you doing? I thought you were going to work in the civil service section your family controls."
"Premal, since Modi has withdrawn the large rupee notes my uncle can no longer give me a job in the civil service and I must work at the call center and to tell you your computer has a virus."
Because its made out of concrete and the shipping costs would make it impossible.
Picture a person who has never yet been in a relationship yet feels attraction. Do you see any problem with them describing themselves with a sexual orientation, even though they have not consummated their choice by engaging in a relationship?
I imagine that the author feels attraction to both men and women and as such describes herself as bi, even though she has not yet had the opportunity to engage in a relationship with a man.
I buy that line of reasoning for someone who's 20 years old, but Rowe is what, late 20s - early 30s?
What does "not had the opportunity" really mean at that age? It sounds to me like a series of conscious decisions not to have that opportunity or an actual lack of interest.
I can completely understand why someone with any kind of "activist" bent to them would want to identify as bi. It's absolutely the safest political choice and prevents being boxed in ideologically.
This is totally off-topic, but how is it that there seem to be so many people who live their lives in an exclusively gendered way (ie, exclusively lesbian relationships, as in the quote) but then make the claim that they are actually bi?
Is it a political thing? Like being anything other than bi is somehow prejudicial or discriminatory, and even though they don't *really* have any interest in sex with whatever the other combination is.
Whenever I hear people pontificate about their sexuality it almost always seems to come up. They are "really" or "actually" bi but thusfar have only had heterosexual sex or homosexual sex. FWIW, it's almost always women, too. I think most often I've heard it from women who were practicing heterosexuals but insisted they were bi but just hadn't had a relationship with a woman. Only rarely have I heard a woman who was otherwise lesbian claim she was bi, but it's not unheard of.
Strangely of the gay men I've known, many have been unabashed about having sex with women without ever feeling like they had to identify as bi.
I don't really care one way or the other, but there seems to be so much insistence by some people that "they're really bi" that it feels like a political statement, not honesty.
My wife works in a business licensing IP and I hear some of the opposite side of the story. The nature of their product is such that it can't be made and distributed in any centralized way, so the business model is mostly licensing the product to producers who then participate in selling and marketing it locally under a common brand name.
Anyway, they occasionally get knocked off by producers. Sometimes its licensees who keep making it after their agreement expires, sometimes its producers who outright knock it off, making their own tooling.
They *could* sue all of them for patent infringement, but it's just not practical. In some cases the patent is close to expiration, in some cases its mostly a negotiating ploy to renew the license under more favorable terms.
Anyway, I would argue that it's not that simple to just "threaten to sue" -- you have to have a case you can win, it's expensive to bring even a winning lawsuit and it can have a chilling effect on other business partners who may see an eagerness to sue as a reason to not do business with you or to demand other concessions which could damage profitability.
And a lot of times if you do threaten, you have to follow through. Businesses are often run by egomanics who don't want to be pushed around, even when they're in the wrong. They'll spot a false threat from a mile away and will view failure to follow through accordingly.
I don't think it applies in the linked pictures, but I've heard the term used to describe women who aren't conventionally attractive and may actually have one or more features which are somewhat unattractive. Yet somehow the whole ends up being greater than the sum of its parts and they end up being attractive.
I often it boils down to the face/body duality. The girl with an unattractive face but great body, the girl with the so-so body but spellbinding face.
The actress Molly Parker is best example I can think of off the top of my head.
The baggage claim area is not a gun free zone. It's outside security and literally anyone from the street could come in with a gun, in addition to someone who had a gun in checked baggage. I don't know if this shooter had actually declared his gun or just put it into his checked luggage (I thought they scanned all checked luggage these days).
The "solution" to this has nothing to do with gun control or kevlar underpants and everything to do with mental health care.
This guy walked into an FBI field office claiming the government was trying to make him watch ISIS videos. They thought he was deranged, so they passed him off to local PD who got him run through whatever cheap mental health screening they use for nuts off the street and then he was set loose again.
The sad story here is that nobody has dime one to provide mental health services for a person claiming the government trying to make them watch videos. This is quite literally tinfoil hat territory, and because there was no money behind him (insurance or private dollars) he gets a social worker with a form designed to satisfy some lawyer's idea of liability. Just how might this have turned out differently if he had been seen by a psychiatrist, talked into a 7 day in-patient evaluation and possibly been given some medication (even if it was just xanax) to get him closer to normal -- or at least seen long enough by trained people to see if he had a more serious long term condition? This guy had been discharged for being a fuckup in the military, so chances are he had a long-term problem.
So many of these spree shooters are people walking around with sign around their necks that says "I HAVE SERIOUS MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS" and we just don't give a shit because nobody will pay for mental health care, so they just roam free. We're not even smart enough to pay for the low-end therapy where they just sedate him in-house for a few days, it's literally a rush to get them out the door before they cost somebody money.
I would say crap execution. There are times where mixed size multi-monitor setups work, but at normal-ish laptop display sizes, a secondary display significantly smaller than the main display is going to be mostly useless.
I'm surprised that nobody has marketed a DIY battery in the same form factor as a 12v car battery run by an array of 18650s with all the expected charging circuits and the ability to "rewire" around dead cells automatically.
Your standard car battery shell seems like it could hold a lot of 18650s.
18650s are the go-to cell for contemporary sub-ohm vaporizers because they can deliver the high current needed to drive a half-ohm or smaller coil at 25+ watts and you can swap out batteries easily.
The fixed-battery "pen" size vaporizers of the older generation used something else but their batteries weren't replaceable and they worked at basically whatever the float voltage was into 1.5-2.5 ohm coils.
The really insane high wattage vapers seem to use fixed battery devices and I don't know what's in them, but they seem to be very high capacity, something like 5000 mAh.
I thought the idea was to actually detonate the nuke on impact like a bunker buster, either providing deflection or deflection and break-up. The downside to breakup being a debris cloud of non-deflected pieces, the further hope that they'd be small enough to burn up in the atmosphere but could potentially be multiple strikes by surviving chunks.
You're making jokes about this, but how do we know that this isn't exactly what Google is most worried about?
I mean, if you were going to just hazard a wild guess based on the usual stereotypes you'd figure Google skews young and male in engineering but does better overall in gender when marketing and other soft skills positions are included. You could talk to anyone in technology and get this same mix described to you like the people involved were talking about the weather or the sun rising in the East. Just the way it is.
But when it comes to race and national origin, I'd guess they skew heavily Indian and Asian but extremely light on blacks.
That's a bad combination for this zeitgeist. Not hiring enough blacks exposes you to all the usual discrimination claims and I'm sure BLM would love a target like Google.
But the real zinger will be the heavy hiring of Indians and Chinese and they don't want Trump ranting on Twitter (a competing service!) about how they're not hiring Americans.
And if Trump had half a brain, he'd say that part of why blacks are doing poorly was that Google was hiring Indians over them. It's ludicrous, I know, but it's political genius because it deflects Trump's alt-right image and it pits blacks against Indians. It's classic divide and conquer.