Apple does this with more than just screens. I have the MacBook air. The same product purchased by two customers might have two different hard drives under the hood. If the components differ in performance or reliability it makes total sense that customers would be upset. It would be worth it to see Apple take a hit on this issue, since it seems to be a general business practice, and frankly, false advertising.
the Justice Department took its own extraordinary measure and sued the company, arguing in court documents that the company was violating the law by challenging its authority
. Stunning is the right word. That lawsuit, which appears to still be active, is an affront to a nation of laws with respect for civil rights. Legally attacking citizens for challenging authority ought to carry a steep political price.
For myself, I work remotely. This let's me take a break to exercise during the day (which in turn helps me stay alert and focused throughout the work day). If you don't have this kind of flexibility at your job, it comes down to what exercises can you do that won't leave you a sweaty mess. For that, I'd recommend yoga you can do at your desk, or standing practice. The latter is great for building lower body strength.
If you don't mind getting sweaty, exercise bands, push ups and fifer scissors/situps, can be great for your upper body, and easy to use/do quietly in a relatively small space.
Whatever you do, don't stand all day. Standing desks just switch out the health problems you get from sitting. Varying what you do is the best tact - if you stand most of the day, find time to sit and rest your legs (and vice versa).
Does anyone else not find this argument compelling? Oh, you spent $200 on an android phone, and can't switch without paying full out of contract price? That's totally cool, you still have choices! People aren't free to keep switching phones every time a given maker decides to change something a user might find detrimental. Also, most users don't want to void their warranty or take any risk by loading another, potentially less functional OS onto their phone. So "go try iOS or Ubuntu Mobile" isn't practical advice, since iOS means purchasing an iDevice, and Ubuntu Mobile means losing functionality and voiding your warranty.
Because you can just choose to not be impacted by pervasive messaging in society. Right. THAT sounds like something you can back up. Even small details can make a big difference.
Do you really think that ads back in the late 50's didn't have an impact on the people who absorbed them?
Here is a metaphor: A man punches his child. As a society, we both of us agree we need to find out why the man hit his kid, and take steps to stop it happening again. But we also both need to realize that the kid who was punched, was affected by that punch. When girls are slammed from every corner of society with messages that say they exist to be sex objects, wives, and mothers ALONE, it has an effect.
Its a common straw man argument, pretending this is about lightly clad women. It isn't. That's fine. The problem is when women are portrayed constantly as mere objects. Take a look: Sexist Modern Ad Examples and Sexist Superbowl Ads. The point you both are missing is that constant sexism has an impact on society, and Europe wants to address that impact. That the sexism itself IS the cause of some societal problems, rather than a mere symptom. It is both a symptom and a cause.
Nope, I don't. Looks like you missed my post below where I linked to the wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orwellian) (easy to overlook, it being in a lower thread and all). In any case, fche's post DID in fact affirm that the bill matches the title, which was my point. I totally concede that I was referring to an aspect of Orwellian, not the whole.
That you call me internet secret police is pretty off the mark. Sad. I disagree with the bill's regulation of the internet. I think the other aspects of the bill, namely restricting sexist advertising in print media, has a solid point worth debating. I think the defense of the status quo to support free speech is admirable. I think the defense of the status quo to support "traditional" ideas, and the implications about attractive models and affirmative action made by fche are far from admirable - those I consider pathetic.
It baffles me that there are men out there so oblivious to the impact of sexist advertising on women and women's role in society. Paranoid, misguided men who think that removing sexist advertising is a plot to turn everyone into the same person. Sad.
This affirms my point that the bill matches the title. Aka, they are eliminating gender stereotypes in a bill titled just that. You may disagree with eliminating gender stereotypes. You may consider gender stereotypes "traditional", and "traditional" you may consider desirable. You may think the usage of attractive models means those models MUST be advertised as meat, showing off their bodies whilst male models are fully clothed, and that this is traditional and desirable. You may think using attractive models in advertising that displays equal gender roles is unethical, social engineering, and evil. Great for you, internet warrior. That execrable point of view does not erase the fact that the bill's text matches the title.
Orwellian would be if the proposal was titled "Eliminating gender stereotypes in the EU", and it told companies they had to have gender stereotypes in their ads. Instead, take a look at the actual proposal. They are concerned about the uneven usage of sexuality to sell products, and the message that sends. They have clearly screwed up the logistics of tackling that issue, but the relationship between the bill itself and the content is not Orwellian.
There still is a big difference: Its easier to notice when someone is pulling out a cell phone or a camera to snap a photo. With a pair of glasses, they could record you without any outward indication that they are recording you.
Is there a way for the world at large to help out, without imposing ourselves? Can we support efforts to provide technical workarounds? Can we find ways to make it harder - and costlier - for governments to censor their citizens?
Well, used printed books have defects. Digital used books will not, unless Amazon/Apple adds digitally ripped pages and coffee stains. In that case why wouldn't potential buyers opt for the cheaper yet identical used digital copy? Surely that will impact the market.
Probably because used digital goods are more appealing than non digital used goods. If I buy a used book, pages may be torn, it might have writing inside "this is for Dave, thanks for being Dave", or it might have coffee stains. A used digital book has none of these problems. This is going to impact the market significantly. Why buy a new copy for $10 when I can buy an identical copy for $3?
Unless of course they figure out a way to add the coffee stains digitally. THEN we're talking.
Let's start with why isn't the general public alarmed? They are opposed, certainly. But not alarmed. I don't know if the media is to blame, but they could definitely change this lack of alarm. How easy would it be to apply journalistic tricks (questions in headlines) and plain old focus to this issue?
Example Headlines: "Drone Strikes, Could YOU Be Targeted?" or "The 5th Amendment: Still Standing?".
Articles could then explore who might be killed, or whether these strikes are a clear violation of constitutional rights.
We could also see these issues brought to the forefront more readily.
This is becoming a Slashdot hallmark. The summary contradicts the article.
the nuclear renaissance is already dead due to the inherent short-sightedness of the "free market."
From the article linked in that very sentence:
Wall Street was already leery of the historically high costs of nuclear power. An abundance of natural gas, lower energy demand induced by the 2008 recession, increased energy-efficiency measures, nuclear’s rising cost estimates, and the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station further diminished prospects for private investment in new US nuclear plants.
Avoiding nuclear power because of (higher investment cost + greater risk of liability + less demand) does not sound like shortsightedness. It sounds like a wise move.
This makes sense. Additionally, since their argument seems to be "its illegal when they do it, but when we do it based on our own metrics of what consumers like it will be legal". That strikes me as a weak position to argue from.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple does this with more than just screens. I have the MacBook air. The same product purchased by two customers might have two different hard drives under the hood. If the components differ in performance or reliability it makes total sense that customers would be upset. It would be worth it to see Apple take a hit on this issue, since it seems to be a general business practice, and frankly, false advertising.
They are Europe's Delaware.
Hahahaha. Sorry, that's still how the US sells itself. Ah... marketing.
. Stunning is the right word. That lawsuit, which appears to still be active, is an affront to a nation of laws with respect for civil rights. Legally attacking citizens for challenging authority ought to carry a steep political price.
For myself, I work remotely. This let's me take a break to exercise during the day (which in turn helps me stay alert and focused throughout the work day). If you don't have this kind of flexibility at your job, it comes down to what exercises can you do that won't leave you a sweaty mess. For that, I'd recommend yoga you can do at your desk, or standing practice. The latter is great for building lower body strength.
If you don't mind getting sweaty, exercise bands, push ups and fifer scissors/situps, can be great for your upper body, and easy to use/do quietly in a relatively small space.
Whatever you do, don't stand all day. Standing desks just switch out the health problems you get from sitting. Varying what you do is the best tact - if you stand most of the day, find time to sit and rest your legs (and vice versa).
There's more than a few variations of the argument "it's expected!". Does that mean it is also ethical, and not newsworthy?
Does anyone else not find this argument compelling? Oh, you spent $200 on an android phone, and can't switch without paying full out of contract price? That's totally cool, you still have choices! People aren't free to keep switching phones every time a given maker decides to change something a user might find detrimental. Also, most users don't want to void their warranty or take any risk by loading another, potentially less functional OS onto their phone. So "go try iOS or Ubuntu Mobile" isn't practical advice, since iOS means purchasing an iDevice, and Ubuntu Mobile means losing functionality and voiding your warranty.
Because you can just choose to not be impacted by pervasive messaging in society. Right. THAT sounds like something you can back up. Even small details can make a big difference.
Do you really think that ads back in the late 50's didn't have an impact on the people who absorbed them?
Here is a metaphor: A man punches his child. As a society, we both of us agree we need to find out why the man hit his kid, and take steps to stop it happening again. But we also both need to realize that the kid who was punched, was affected by that punch. When girls are slammed from every corner of society with messages that say they exist to be sex objects, wives, and mothers ALONE, it has an effect.
Its a common straw man argument, pretending this is about lightly clad women. It isn't. That's fine. The problem is when women are portrayed constantly as mere objects. Take a look: Sexist Modern Ad Examples and Sexist Superbowl Ads. The point you both are missing is that constant sexism has an impact on society, and Europe wants to address that impact. That the sexism itself IS the cause of some societal problems, rather than a mere symptom. It is both a symptom and a cause.
Nope, I don't. Looks like you missed my post below where I linked to the wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orwellian) (easy to overlook, it being in a lower thread and all). In any case, fche's post DID in fact affirm that the bill matches the title, which was my point. I totally concede that I was referring to an aspect of Orwellian, not the whole.
That you call me internet secret police is pretty off the mark. Sad. I disagree with the bill's regulation of the internet. I think the other aspects of the bill, namely restricting sexist advertising in print media, has a solid point worth debating. I think the defense of the status quo to support free speech is admirable. I think the defense of the status quo to support "traditional" ideas, and the implications about attractive models and affirmative action made by fche are far from admirable - those I consider pathetic.
It baffles me that there are men out there so oblivious to the impact of sexist advertising on women and women's role in society. Paranoid, misguided men who think that removing sexist advertising is a plot to turn everyone into the same person. Sad.
This affirms my point that the bill matches the title. Aka, they are eliminating gender stereotypes in a bill titled just that. You may disagree with eliminating gender stereotypes. You may consider gender stereotypes "traditional", and "traditional" you may consider desirable. You may think the usage of attractive models means those models MUST be advertised as meat, showing off their bodies whilst male models are fully clothed, and that this is traditional and desirable. You may think using attractive models in advertising that displays equal gender roles is unethical, social engineering, and evil. Great for you, internet warrior. That execrable point of view does not erase the fact that the bill's text matches the title.
Apparently we are all incorrect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orwellian. Yay.
Looking at the actual law, can you point out how they are regulating thoughts? K, thanks. Because it looks like they are regulating advertising.
Orwellian would be if the proposal was titled "Eliminating gender stereotypes in the EU", and it told companies they had to have gender stereotypes in their ads. Instead, take a look at the actual proposal. They are concerned about the uneven usage of sexuality to sell products, and the message that sends. They have clearly screwed up the logistics of tackling that issue, but the relationship between the bill itself and the content is not Orwellian.
For PHP? Yes, if the hammer is a wrecking ball controlled via satellite from a bunker in Nevada.
There still is a big difference: Its easier to notice when someone is pulling out a cell phone or a camera to snap a photo. With a pair of glasses, they could record you without any outward indication that they are recording you.
Is there a way for the world at large to help out, without imposing ourselves? Can we support efforts to provide technical workarounds? Can we find ways to make it harder - and costlier - for governments to censor their citizens?
Well, used printed books have defects. Digital used books will not, unless Amazon/Apple adds digitally ripped pages and coffee stains. In that case why wouldn't potential buyers opt for the cheaper yet identical used digital copy? Surely that will impact the market.
Probably because used digital goods are more appealing than non digital used goods. If I buy a used book, pages may be torn, it might have writing inside "this is for Dave, thanks for being Dave", or it might have coffee stains. A used digital book has none of these problems. This is going to impact the market significantly. Why buy a new copy for $10 when I can buy an identical copy for $3?
Unless of course they figure out a way to add the coffee stains digitally. THEN we're talking.
Precisely. How much credibility does Holder have left, after essentially saying the 5th amendment does not exist?
Let's start with why isn't the general public alarmed? They are opposed, certainly. But not alarmed. I don't know if the media is to blame, but they could definitely change this lack of alarm. How easy would it be to apply journalistic tricks (questions in headlines) and plain old focus to this issue?
Example Headlines: "Drone Strikes, Could YOU Be Targeted?" or "The 5th Amendment: Still Standing?".
Articles could then explore who might be killed, or whether these strikes are a clear violation of constitutional rights.
We could also see these issues brought to the forefront more readily.
This is an interesting case, of a company going directly against the stated (and popular) view of the voters.
Personally I think the law should have stuck, but since it didn't, let's look at what we can do with what we have:
1. Work to change legal recognition of corporate personhood.
2. Establish laws that limit the ability of similar lawsuits to be brought.
3. Use our own free speech to criticize the companies who pull stunts like this. This lawsuit is a stain on their brand.
From the article linked in that very sentence:
Avoiding nuclear power because of (higher investment cost + greater risk of liability + less demand) does not sound like shortsightedness. It sounds like a wise move.
This makes sense. Additionally, since their argument seems to be "its illegal when they do it, but when we do it based on our own metrics of what consumers like it will be legal". That strikes me as a weak position to argue from.