I guess Apple prefer displays that "pop", go insanely bright for epeen^W benchmarks and are very very thin. They have always been fond of using software to calibrate out limitations of hardware, such as their speakers.
The UK now has permanent sales. Some companies, like DFS (shitty over-price sofas) have become the butt of jokes, using the end of the DFS sale in place of hell freezing over for events that are unlikely to ever happen.
The law actually requires products to be for sale at full price for at least 28 days before they can be described as discounted, but they get around it by having one insanely expensive shop somewhere in the country and then permanent discounts at all the others.
Some places are just over-priced no matter what. Electronics retailer Maplin went out of business recently, and even in the final days when stuff was genuinely 80% off a lot of it was still 3x as much as Amazon or eBay, and of comparable quality.
The way they make money is to tell your price alerts to the sellers. They can see that X people are willing to pay âY for this product, and use that to set their selling price.
Unfortunately scammers can buy this information too and do fake sales where they offer the product at exactly the price you want it. Then they just run off with the cash and you eventually get a refund from Amazon. They sometimes take over existing Amazon shops, other times they set up a new one and usually phrase it something like "display product used in my shop, selling cheap..."
The rule in the EU is that the price advertised must be the price you pay for everything you would reasonably expect, including things like taxes and random fees. Parking might be included sometimes, it depends what it is you are booking (e.g. airline tickets won't include airport parking).
They also can't get away with advertising offers where there are only one or two available and the rest cost much more, aka bait and switch. Comparison prices can show them and let you book them, but they can't do billboards or TV ads for them.
The next step is to ban comparison sites and search engines from pressure selling to you. A lot of them claim to only have a couple of rooms left or only hold the flight for 1 minute.
The EU generally doesn't investigate stuff like this itself, it relies on member states' own consumer watchdogs to do it and then bring the case to them if it looks like an EU wide issue. Unfortunately that does mean that it can be a bit slow.
Women often wear clothing as a symbol of femininity/power over OTHER WOMEN-- EG, a woman may "overdress" for work, which sends the "I am ok with having my body's aesthetics enjoyed" message, when that message is not really intended. The intended message is "See bitches, I'm totally hotter than you, and I know it."
Yes, and it's just as toxic as guys using their physicality to intimidate. It's quite a complex problem, and the best thing men can do about it is to not engage with women who try to do that. If it doesn't work they lose their power, both over you and over the women they are trying to send a message to.
Except some women will become vocally upset because others look intensely at them and effectively try to revoke permission to look at them in that way.
There has to be some limit... For example, wearing a skirt or a kilt doesn't make it okay to look up it, even though it's open from certain angles.
And at some rather fuzzy point in the middle there is a point at which looking at women for extended periods of time, say staring at her boobs instead of her face while talking to her, is creepy.
I'm sure some women are over-sensitive about it, but equally some guys are creepy about it too. All we can do is keep talking about it.
At first, only the successful hunter was an alpha male.
There were never any alpha males. The whole concept is based on a book about wolves kept in captivity, the findings of which were later retracted by a later book by the same author. Wolves don't behave like that and human beings certainly don't.
The idea of the alpha male hunter is also something of a myth. Hunting is dangerous and physically demanding - it's the sort of thing you get other people to do for you if you can possibly help it. We see this in the animal kingdom a lot, and all through human history.
And James Damore has put himself out there.
Didn't he give the memo only to people he trusted, until it was leaked?
A lot of people are derisive when it comes to defining masculinity by any other means than money and muscle but that is a very limited position to take.
I acknowledged all that in my comment, pointing out that later studies using more rigorous methodology confirmed the findings. Not some random WaPo journalist, but actual peer reviewed studies.
The BoJ stats used a different, narrower definition of sexual assault and a limited time frame (six months), as I also pointed out. Thus, the numbers are not in any way directly comparable.
On Linux and Windows the hosts file is parsed and lookups are very fast, as you would expect. In fact the extra time taken for the lookup is more than offset by the download and image decoding time savings anyway.
If it really bothers you then you can set up a PiHole, a Raspberry Pi that provides DNS with ad filtering. Then all the work is outsourced to a dedicated low power box.
Admitting wrong-doing out of court would be a disaster for Google, as it would open them up to more lawsuits from both people who agree with Damore and people who quit or lost opportunities because of him.
Since the Labour Board has already given its opinion that Damore was legally fired and the authors of his primary sources have disagreed with his conclusions it appears that Google has a strong case. Thing is, even if he was right it might not actually help him win, because the manner in which the memo was circulated certainly did create a problem at Google and they would argue it was his fault, so he would have to counter-argue that somehow it wasn't.
I'm actually quite looking forward to hearing those arguments.
I'm a humanist (and a feminist) and I'd like to offer a correction.
These people have an ideal: Women should never be objectified, EVER. (EEEVAAARR).
Humanists don't think that. Aside from anything humanism isn't really concerned with that sort of thing anyway, it's a form of existentialism that concerns itself with the agency of human beings and their ability to reason without the need for religious frameworks or morality.
Anyway, I think this misconception, which is usually applied to feminists, comes from some misunderstandings.
For example, enjoying the human body for it's form and sexuality is fine, when you have permission to do so. Permission is given in all sorts of ways, for example if someone decides to wear certain tight or revealing clothing. Perhaps the misunderstanding comes from the fact that that permission doesn't extend to touching, or imply availability or the desire for an approach necessarily. But when that person chooses to offer their body for your enjoyment then go right ahead.
Another misconception might be because sometimes people wear such clothing for reasons other than enjoying their own sexuality, such as athletes who need it to perform. I think most people appreciate that it would be inappropriate for a sports commentator to start commenting on an athlete's looks, even though they might be wearing very little.
A great example of this is tennis. Some tournaments require women to wear a skirt, so they usually just wear the lyrca they normally put on and a minimal skirt over it. Many feminists would prefer they were allowed to wear less, because the skirt is unnecessary and purely there to make them conform to a certain ideal of femininity.
Sadly you have fallen into the same trap of perpetuating this myth that many others have. For example, the "x% of female students have been sexually assaulted while at college" claim was actually from a very well written paper (the original Campus Sexual Assault (CSA) survey). It was quite conservative, using a definition of sexual assault that was stricter than most legal ones (and definitely doesn't include "someone glanced at a woman in the elevator"), and actually breaks down the statistics even further into categories like violent and incapacitated assault.
Despite a number of caveats given in the paper, its results have been found by subsequent studies using very robust methodology (e.g. phone interviews with explanations of terms and the definition of sexual assault, limited to the past 6 months to avoid telescoping effects etc.) to be broadly representative.
The really sad thing is that some men are now scared to even interact with women or be in confined spaces with the, due to unfounded fears perpetuated by these myths. I'm sure someone will respond with a bunch of copy/paste links they prepared demonstrating that the threat is real, but a bunch of links isn't really in the same league as a peer reviewed study.
I understand your sentiment, but Google has done more than probably anyone else except Snowden to stop NSA/GCHQ spying. Their push for universal use of HTTPS, encrypted email transport and encryption by default on Android shouldn't be underestimated.
I wonder if Apple does some factory colour calibration.
Other manufacturers do on some models, but often a better option is to buy yourself a colour calibration device. That way you can calibrate all your displays to be the same and suited to your work environment lighting.
A 4k 13" display has a PPI high enough to match phone display levels of readability. Small phone screens are very readable because the fonts are well defined.
Overall you are right though. A Lenovo or NEC laptop is pretty much perfect now, apart perhaps from the price.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you tried complaining? What was the process like?
Yes. Not because of the stock, because he built Amazon by abusing his employees with shit conditions and wages.
And if you thought the Microsoft tax was bad, check out the Amazon marketplace tax.
He has more money than he knows what to do with while his staff don't get a living wage. Conditions in Amazon warehouse are Dickensian.
That's what we know about Jeff Bezos.
My plan is to get banned from the USA so that work can never send me there for any reason.
I think they went bust multiple times and eventually all the assets were sold off... If they still exist it's probably not the same company.
I guess Apple prefer displays that "pop", go insanely bright for epeen^W benchmarks and are very very thin. They have always been fond of using software to calibrate out limitations of hardware, such as their speakers.
Are those things really comparable though? One is saying "I'm not ashamed to be LGBTQ" and the other is perpetuating harmful stereotypes.
The UK now has permanent sales. Some companies, like DFS (shitty over-price sofas) have become the butt of jokes, using the end of the DFS sale in place of hell freezing over for events that are unlikely to ever happen.
The law actually requires products to be for sale at full price for at least 28 days before they can be described as discounted, but they get around it by having one insanely expensive shop somewhere in the country and then permanent discounts at all the others.
Some places are just over-priced no matter what. Electronics retailer Maplin went out of business recently, and even in the final days when stuff was genuinely 80% off a lot of it was still 3x as much as Amazon or eBay, and of comparable quality.
Beware of camelcamelcamel scams though.
The way they make money is to tell your price alerts to the sellers. They can see that X people are willing to pay âY for this product, and use that to set their selling price.
Unfortunately scammers can buy this information too and do fake sales where they offer the product at exactly the price you want it. Then they just run off with the cash and you eventually get a refund from Amazon. They sometimes take over existing Amazon shops, other times they set up a new one and usually phrase it something like "display product used in my shop, selling cheap..."
The rule in the EU is that the price advertised must be the price you pay for everything you would reasonably expect, including things like taxes and random fees. Parking might be included sometimes, it depends what it is you are booking (e.g. airline tickets won't include airport parking).
They also can't get away with advertising offers where there are only one or two available and the rest cost much more, aka bait and switch. Comparison prices can show them and let you book them, but they can't do billboards or TV ads for them.
The next step is to ban comparison sites and search engines from pressure selling to you. A lot of them claim to only have a couple of rooms left or only hold the flight for 1 minute.
The EU generally doesn't investigate stuff like this itself, it relies on member states' own consumer watchdogs to do it and then bring the case to them if it looks like an EU wide issue. Unfortunately that does mean that it can be a bit slow.
Women often wear clothing as a symbol of femininity/power over OTHER WOMEN-- EG, a woman may "overdress" for work, which sends the "I am ok with having my body's aesthetics enjoyed" message, when that message is not really intended. The intended message is "See bitches, I'm totally hotter than you, and I know it."
Yes, and it's just as toxic as guys using their physicality to intimidate. It's quite a complex problem, and the best thing men can do about it is to not engage with women who try to do that. If it doesn't work they lose their power, both over you and over the women they are trying to send a message to.
Marxist game blogs
You owe me a new keyboard, mine has coffee in it now.
Except some women will become vocally upset because others look intensely at them and effectively try to revoke permission to look at them in that way.
There has to be some limit... For example, wearing a skirt or a kilt doesn't make it okay to look up it, even though it's open from certain angles.
And at some rather fuzzy point in the middle there is a point at which looking at women for extended periods of time, say staring at her boobs instead of her face while talking to her, is creepy.
I'm sure some women are over-sensitive about it, but equally some guys are creepy about it too. All we can do is keep talking about it.
At first, only the successful hunter was an alpha male.
There were never any alpha males. The whole concept is based on a book about wolves kept in captivity, the findings of which were later retracted by a later book by the same author. Wolves don't behave like that and human beings certainly don't.
The idea of the alpha male hunter is also something of a myth. Hunting is dangerous and physically demanding - it's the sort of thing you get other people to do for you if you can possibly help it. We see this in the animal kingdom a lot, and all through human history.
And James Damore has put himself out there.
Didn't he give the memo only to people he trusted, until it was leaked?
A lot of people are derisive when it comes to defining masculinity by any other means than money and muscle but that is a very limited position to take.
Well, at least we agree on that.
I acknowledged all that in my comment, pointing out that later studies using more rigorous methodology confirmed the findings. Not some random WaPo journalist, but actual peer reviewed studies.
The BoJ stats used a different, narrower definition of sexual assault and a limited time frame (six months), as I also pointed out. Thus, the numbers are not in any way directly comparable.
Actually I put Obama in my Death Note over his use of drones.
On Linux and Windows the hosts file is parsed and lookups are very fast, as you would expect. In fact the extra time taken for the lookup is more than offset by the download and image decoding time savings anyway.
If it really bothers you then you can set up a PiHole, a Raspberry Pi that provides DNS with ad filtering. Then all the work is outsourced to a dedicated low power box.
Admitting wrong-doing out of court would be a disaster for Google, as it would open them up to more lawsuits from both people who agree with Damore and people who quit or lost opportunities because of him.
Since the Labour Board has already given its opinion that Damore was legally fired and the authors of his primary sources have disagreed with his conclusions it appears that Google has a strong case. Thing is, even if he was right it might not actually help him win, because the manner in which the memo was circulated certainly did create a problem at Google and they would argue it was his fault, so he would have to counter-argue that somehow it wasn't.
I'm actually quite looking forward to hearing those arguments.
I'm a humanist (and a feminist) and I'd like to offer a correction.
These people have an ideal: Women should never be objectified, EVER. (EEEVAAARR).
Humanists don't think that. Aside from anything humanism isn't really concerned with that sort of thing anyway, it's a form of existentialism that concerns itself with the agency of human beings and their ability to reason without the need for religious frameworks or morality.
Anyway, I think this misconception, which is usually applied to feminists, comes from some misunderstandings.
For example, enjoying the human body for it's form and sexuality is fine, when you have permission to do so. Permission is given in all sorts of ways, for example if someone decides to wear certain tight or revealing clothing. Perhaps the misunderstanding comes from the fact that that permission doesn't extend to touching, or imply availability or the desire for an approach necessarily. But when that person chooses to offer their body for your enjoyment then go right ahead.
Another misconception might be because sometimes people wear such clothing for reasons other than enjoying their own sexuality, such as athletes who need it to perform. I think most people appreciate that it would be inappropriate for a sports commentator to start commenting on an athlete's looks, even though they might be wearing very little.
A great example of this is tennis. Some tournaments require women to wear a skirt, so they usually just wear the lyrca they normally put on and a minimal skirt over it. Many feminists would prefer they were allowed to wear less, because the skirt is unnecessary and purely there to make them conform to a certain ideal of femininity.
Sadly you have fallen into the same trap of perpetuating this myth that many others have. For example, the "x% of female students have been sexually assaulted while at college" claim was actually from a very well written paper (the original Campus Sexual Assault (CSA) survey). It was quite conservative, using a definition of sexual assault that was stricter than most legal ones (and definitely doesn't include "someone glanced at a woman in the elevator"), and actually breaks down the statistics even further into categories like violent and incapacitated assault.
Despite a number of caveats given in the paper, its results have been found by subsequent studies using very robust methodology (e.g. phone interviews with explanations of terms and the definition of sexual assault, limited to the past 6 months to avoid telescoping effects etc.) to be broadly representative.
The really sad thing is that some men are now scared to even interact with women or be in confined spaces with the, due to unfounded fears perpetuated by these myths. I'm sure someone will respond with a bunch of copy/paste links they prepared demonstrating that the threat is real, but a bunch of links isn't really in the same league as a peer reviewed study.
I understand your sentiment, but Google has done more than probably anyone else except Snowden to stop NSA/GCHQ spying. Their push for universal use of HTTPS, encrypted email transport and encryption by default on Android shouldn't be underestimated.
I wonder if Apple does some factory colour calibration.
Other manufacturers do on some models, but often a better option is to buy yourself a colour calibration device. That way you can calibrate all your displays to be the same and suited to your work environment lighting.
People who are serious about typing don't buy MacBooks any more. Apple keyboards used to be poor but acceptable, but they are just really poor.
A 4k 13" display has a PPI high enough to match phone display levels of readability. Small phone screens are very readable because the fonts are well defined.
Overall you are right though. A Lenovo or NEC laptop is pretty much perfect now, apart perhaps from the price.