please enumerate all of the circumstances when someone sells you a donut, and withdraws their consent just after you swallowed it.
When you buy a donut, the donut is then yours to dispose of as you want. I really, really, really should not have to point this out, but that's not the case for sex: your partner doesn't surrender control of her body to you during the act. The fact that she consented initially doesn't entitle you to continue after that consent has been withdrawn.
In real life, there are two kinds of men: those who stop promptly when their partner tells them to, and those who very obviously don't. The latter are the ones who find themselves accused of rape (though not nearly often enough).
These are also the ones who start all the theoretical arguments about what exactly you're allowed to do to a woman when she no longer wants your dick inside her, and for how long. In fact, this is a pretty good index of rape apology—when somebody tries to shift the argument from "does she want it" to "at what point am I entitled to disregard whether she wants it." Or, to use your analogy: "At what point is the donut mine?"
youre screwing someone, and she withdraws consent half a second before your ejaculation. or, just at the point you started ejaculation and your body is convulsing involuntarily.
Please enumerate all of the circumstances where it's ok to fuck somebody who doesn't want you to. That sounds like it would be very useful to know.
I don't disagree in principle but the devil is in the details:
1)How long does one have to stop ? A vague answer such as immediately or at once won't cut it, The answer must be a precise amount of time. For example, a time of "0.0000 seconds" would mean anyone asked to stop is automatically guilty of rape as soon even if the one asked to stop actually stop.
A "reasonable" amount of time. You know, using that legal construction where you ask what a "reasonable" person would judge.
This issue is, in actual reality, not a real problem. In 99.9999% of cases (and yeah, we know where that number comes from, but bear with me), when a woman wants a man to stop, the man either stops quickly enough to her satisfaction, or continues long enough that it's obvious he doesn't give a damn about her consent.
2)How do you collect evidence on such a case when one of the party claims the other didn't stop and the other party claims the contrary.
The same way you do for any other criminal case. E.g., what would you propose the court do if you claim that I mugged you and I claim that you gave me your $100 as a gift?
Based on the - undisputed - version of events that has come out in Sweden, Assange had consensual sex with the first woman who subsequently attended a social function accompanying him. Odd behaviour for a rape victim.
I think by "undisputed version of events" you mean "shit Assange's lawyers have been telling the press."
Also, the "odd behavior for a rape victim" that you describe is in fact fairly stereotypical for date rape victims who are in denial or blaming themselves. It may sound crazy for you, but the real world works like that, and it's well known. You can't conclude anything from the fact that she accompanied him later.
To give an extreme example, this sort of behavior is also common for women who are physically abused by their husband or domestic partner. Their man will beat the shit out of them—yet they will hide it, and when discovered they will insist that it's their fault because they provoked him, and even defend him when the cops get involved. Would you think that such a woman is showing "odd behavior for an abuse victim"? Because that's in fact normal behavior for an abuse victim!
Possibly a different definition of one as well. This isnt "gun to the head violent rape", this is "Swedish-law-consent-was-withdrawn" rape, if the accusations are correct.
You know, basically all industrialized Western nations consider it rape when somebody continues having sex with a partner who's withdrawn consent. This isn't some Sweden-only thing.
And "gun to the head" is a very rare rape scenario. Stuff like The Implication is a lot more common than that.
Undisputed....Assange had consensual sex with the first woman.....when the first woman became aware of this she approached the police.
Its not undisputed, it is in fact the primary dispute of the case-- whether the sex was consensual, or simply started that way and consent was withdrawn during the act.
Yup. There's a large number of morons who will tell you the "facts" of this case—which upon examination, turn out to be the defense lawyers' version! And then there was the time back in November or so when some documents from the prosecution came out describing the accuser's allegations that Assange used force to obtain compliance; the defense then protested vigorously that the prosecution was trying to try the case in the court of public opinion.
You can withdraw consent at any point during sex, but you can't withdraw consent afterwards. Which is really the crux of the matter, the women didn't consider it to be rape until after consulting with police, which makes it really fishy that there was anything that Assange did that was criminal.
If your partner withdraws consent during sex yet you still continue, that's rape, even if your partner doesn't think it is at the moment. The victim's failure to understand the law at the moment of the act doesn't excuse the accused; what matters is whether the victim was coerced into having sex when she no longer wanted to.
One of the big problems in this world is that there are way too many women who will be raped by an acquaintance and yet not acknowledge that what the man did to her is rape. Denial and self-blame is, in fact, a stereotypical reaction from rape victims: "it wasn't rape; he was just drunk/I didn't make myself clear/I brought him to my room/he couldn't help himself/etc."
Excellent example! And then they humiliate the woman by publishing the photos without her consent.
Humiliating? Sure. Evil? Perhaps. Comparable to rape? Certainly not.
Of course it can be compared to rape. There is a clear continuum of disregard, contempt and abuse of women's right to control who sees and touches which parts of their bodies. Rape is one of the worst offenses in that continuum—usually by far.
But other things that fall in that area are rape apology ("she was asking for it"), posting your ex's sexting photos to 4chan, taking nonconsensual upskirt photos, watching porn that depicts nonconsensual upskirting, watching porn that depicts women misogynistically (which is about, um, 95% of porn), buying tabloids because they feature accidental upskirt photos of celebrities, etc.
JS is a horrible language, but the principles it is made from are the same across all languages. It has foreach loops, it has while loops, it has if statements, it has user input and output....
I can name several languages that don't have all of those. For example, Haskell has I/O, but not really any of the other three.
Every moron that wants to hype yet another crappy language as the next great thing always has compared it to Lisp. Which is stupid, since everybody hates Lisp.
Just because it is on Wikipedia does not make it true or complete. I can assure you that upskirt refers to the composition of a photo or video, not its consensuality. Dare I ask, what do you think a consensually-taken upskirt photo would be called if not also 'upskirt'
You are right. "Upskirt" very often often refers to consensually taken photographs of women who are paid to pretend that the photographer is taking nonconsensual photos up their skirts. These photos are then sold to men who wish or pretend that the photos were truly taken nonconsensually.
Further, if in the course of some other activity a woman accidentally shows her underwear on camera, that too is called a 'pantyshot' even though the camera was not there for the explicit purpose of capturing the event.
Excellent example! And then they humiliate the woman by publishing the photos without her consent.
I live in the San Francisco Peninsula, within two blocks of a Vietnamese restaurant and a Japanese take-out place that take cash only. There's also plenty of restaurants that refuse to take credit cards for bills under either $15 or $20.
This is a misconception. Your $5 Casio will be off by a tiny fraction; e.g. 1/2 a second per day. But, it will *always* be off by the same amount, so that the error will accumulate - it will be ~3 minutes off after a year.
An analog/mechanical watch such as a Speedmaster - particularly those that are "Certified Chronometers", which are individually tested to a fairly tough standard - will drift. In hot weather they will tend to gain time, in colder weather they will tend to lose (the lubricant changes viscosity with temperature). Time will also vary depending on how often they are worn, and how active the wearer is, and how often and how much they are wound (the more wound they are, the faster they run - only by a microscopic amount, but it is measurable). So, a quality mechanical watch may vary forward and backward by more in a single day than the cheap Casio - but the errors will very often cancel themselves, so that after a year, the Omega may well keep much better time.
If you think more carefully about this, what this tells you is that the quartz watch is actually a better tool for measuring time accurately. Why? Because if its rate error is truly consistent, it can be measured and then used to correct the reading.
This method is how the old mechanical marine chronometers in ships were used to determine longitude. These clocks were designed to eliminate the rate inconsistencies you mention. Each chronometer was calibrated, set, and tested to ensure that the rate error was small and consistent, and then marked with its difference from GMT at testing date and measured rate offset. The users of the clock kept a log of the accumulated daily errors and used this to correct the clock's readings.
The point is that "keeping correct time" is not the same thing in all circumstances; change the criterion, and the quartz clock is more accurate than the mechanical one, precisely because its rate is more constant.
I then tried a purely mechanical watch (that was more expensive, of course), but it was just too heavy and huge.
This is a two-part problem. First, most people who go for mechanical watches go for automatics (i.e., self-winding), and it's really hard to make those thin and light; if you want one that's not as big, heavy and clunky as the cheaper ones, you have to pay thousands of dollars. So the best bet for small and light is handwound watches, and those just aren't as common because most folks just rule them out without thinking.
Second, too many lower-end mechanical watch buyers actually want huge flashy watches to show off as bling. So there's a huge glut of mens' mechanical watches with 38mm+ cases. Also, way too many watches with chronometers, moon phase, weird calendar mechanisms, etc. Bling bling.
The short of it is that if you want a nice, small analog watch without spending too much money, you're gonna have to go with $100+ quartz models. If you insist on mechanical, your selection will be surprisingly small, and it's really gonna cost you; the most affordable quality handwound small-case watch I've found is the Antea Kleine Sekunde, which (a) I had to order from Germany, (b) took about a month and a half for them to build and ship, (c) costs just over 400 Euro.
I used to be an analog snob until I saw an engineer at our company use the calculator on his wristwatch (before everyone one had smart phones) during a meeting to come up with a few figures... at the time I was doing a lot of grilling and timing is crucial... a digital watch worked much better, so I got one. After that, it's been great - I coached a few teams (academic and sports) and had the stop watch; the alarm clock has been great, and lot more convenient than my smart phone when I'm running down the field with my team...
First of all, cash isn't the only method for corporate acquisitions. The other one is that they buyer can trade their own equity for the purchase; "I'll give you n shares of my stock for each m shares of yours." This can be combined with cash, but cash is part of the buyer's market cap too, so to estimate one company's capacity to buy another, you look at the market cap, not at the cash reserves. GOOG are 155.99B, so they'd still have to give away more than half of their company to get half of Oracle.
Second, when a company is interested in buying a second one, they usually have to pay premium to convince the target's owners to sells. Buying Oracle would cost more than Oracle's market cap—or more precisely, a serious intent to buy Oracle would drive up Oracle's price.
However, to be a test of "languages on the market" I would have expected the following to be there for certain [...]
Who claimed the paper was a test of the "languages on the market"? (Hint #1: that was not a rhetorical question. Hint #2: you're supposed to draw a conclusion from the answer.)
Let's not forget that Java strings are more similar to Pascal than to C. A string in Java is an object that encapsulates a char[], a start index and a length. So for example, taking a substring from i to j is O(1) in time and memory for Java—it just returns a new String object with the same char[] but a new start index and length.
Oh yes. Why shouldn't a GC language where the GC has to search through lists regularly instead of you telling the memory management what to clean up by giving it the pointer be faster?
Actually, your question just goes to show you don't understand the GC-vs.-malloc performance issue.
In a pure worst case time complexity analysis, assuming there are at least some objects to be collected or freed, malloc/free is costlier than stop-and-copy GC:
Free has to pay a cost to deallocate each object it frees. In stop-and-copy GC, there is no corresponding cost; collected objects are just not visited by the collector.
Malloc has to scan and modify a non-trivial a data structure to find a free block large enough to satisfy each call. Stop-and-copy GC just needs to increment a pointer.
Malloc/free can suffer from heap fragmentation, which makes its performance degradate over run time. Stop-and-copy compacts the heap.
Of course, in practice malloc/free is faster. But this is because for completely different reasons than what you say:
Stop-and-copy GC has a larger memory footprint.
Stop-and-copy GC will periodically go and touch most of the pages in your application's virtual memory, which is penalized by processor cache and OS virtual memory managers.
In effect, part of the problem is that CPUs and VMMs are designed for the benefit of programs that use C-style memory management, and not for those who use GC.
Haskell is on the forefront of type system research right now - a lot of various experimental stuff is there, especially if you look at GHC rather than language standard. STM is also actively investigated there. Finally, due to the language being pervasively lazy, it offers some unique optimization challenges.
I'm less than completely sure about that, given things like dependently typed languages... Yes, there are hacks to simulate dependent types in Haskell, but they are hacks.
I haven't read Pinker. As an aside, I advice you to be extremely careful to believe anything he says. (And for the record, I have a similar opinion of Lakoff, one of the inventors of Conceptual Methaphor Theory...)
If you want to understand what the project in TFA is about, you're going about it the wrong way by just looking up words in the dictionary. (And as an aside, why do people think that dictionaries are somehow sophisticated tools that will tell you the true answer to any question? They're just vague rough references about what somebody might mean by using a given word.)
The right thing to look at here is Lakoff and Johnson's Conceptual Metaphor Theory, which (a) your dictionary doesn't cover, (b) is much more elaborate than what your dictionary says (because, again, dictionaries ain't supposed to be that thorough and detailed!).
You're missing that the term "metaphor" here is being used in the sense of Conceptual Metaphor Theory, where it's not just an expression that compares two unlikes without using "like"; it's a mental model of one domain in terms of another to allow reasoning about one in terms of another. Check out the link.
Slashdot Mirror
please enumerate all of the circumstances when someone sells you a donut, and withdraws their consent just after you swallowed it.
When you buy a donut, the donut is then yours to dispose of as you want. I really, really, really should not have to point this out, but that's not the case for sex: your partner doesn't surrender control of her body to you during the act. The fact that she consented initially doesn't entitle you to continue after that consent has been withdrawn.
In real life, there are two kinds of men: those who stop promptly when their partner tells them to, and those who very obviously don't. The latter are the ones who find themselves accused of rape (though not nearly often enough).
These are also the ones who start all the theoretical arguments about what exactly you're allowed to do to a woman when she no longer wants your dick inside her, and for how long. In fact, this is a pretty good index of rape apology—when somebody tries to shift the argument from "does she want it" to "at what point am I entitled to disregard whether she wants it." Or, to use your analogy: "At what point is the donut mine?"
youre screwing someone, and she withdraws consent half a second before your ejaculation. or, just at the point you started ejaculation and your body is convulsing involuntarily.
Please enumerate all of the circumstances where it's ok to fuck somebody who doesn't want you to. That sounds like it would be very useful to know.
I don't disagree in principle but the devil is in the details: 1)How long does one have to stop ? A vague answer such as immediately or at once won't cut it, The answer must be a precise amount of time. For example, a time of "0.0000 seconds" would mean anyone asked to stop is automatically guilty of rape as soon even if the one asked to stop actually stop.
A "reasonable" amount of time. You know, using that legal construction where you ask what a "reasonable" person would judge.
This issue is, in actual reality, not a real problem. In 99.9999% of cases (and yeah, we know where that number comes from, but bear with me), when a woman wants a man to stop, the man either stops quickly enough to her satisfaction, or continues long enough that it's obvious he doesn't give a damn about her consent.
2)How do you collect evidence on such a case when one of the party claims the other didn't stop and the other party claims the contrary.
The same way you do for any other criminal case. E.g., what would you propose the court do if you claim that I mugged you and I claim that you gave me your $100 as a gift?
Based on the - undisputed - version of events that has come out in Sweden, Assange had consensual sex with the first woman who subsequently attended a social function accompanying him. Odd behaviour for a rape victim.
I think by "undisputed version of events" you mean "shit Assange's lawyers have been telling the press."
Also, the "odd behavior for a rape victim" that you describe is in fact fairly stereotypical for date rape victims who are in denial or blaming themselves. It may sound crazy for you, but the real world works like that, and it's well known. You can't conclude anything from the fact that she accompanied him later.
To give an extreme example, this sort of behavior is also common for women who are physically abused by their husband or domestic partner. Their man will beat the shit out of them—yet they will hide it, and when discovered they will insist that it's their fault because they provoked him, and even defend him when the cops get involved. Would you think that such a woman is showing "odd behavior for an abuse victim"? Because that's in fact normal behavior for an abuse victim!
Odd behaviour for a rape victim.
Possibly a different definition of one as well. This isnt "gun to the head violent rape", this is "Swedish-law-consent-was-withdrawn" rape, if the accusations are correct.
You know, basically all industrialized Western nations consider it rape when somebody continues having sex with a partner who's withdrawn consent. This isn't some Sweden-only thing.
And "gun to the head" is a very rare rape scenario. Stuff like The Implication is a lot more common than that.
Undisputed....Assange had consensual sex with the first woman.....when the first woman became aware of this she approached the police.
Its not undisputed, it is in fact the primary dispute of the case-- whether the sex was consensual, or simply started that way and consent was withdrawn during the act.
Yup. There's a large number of morons who will tell you the "facts" of this case—which upon examination, turn out to be the defense lawyers' version! And then there was the time back in November or so when some documents from the prosecution came out describing the accuser's allegations that Assange used force to obtain compliance; the defense then protested vigorously that the prosecution was trying to try the case in the court of public opinion.
You can withdraw consent at any point during sex, but you can't withdraw consent afterwards. Which is really the crux of the matter, the women didn't consider it to be rape until after consulting with police, which makes it really fishy that there was anything that Assange did that was criminal.
If your partner withdraws consent during sex yet you still continue, that's rape, even if your partner doesn't think it is at the moment. The victim's failure to understand the law at the moment of the act doesn't excuse the accused; what matters is whether the victim was coerced into having sex when she no longer wanted to.
One of the big problems in this world is that there are way too many women who will be raped by an acquaintance and yet not acknowledge that what the man did to her is rape. Denial and self-blame is, in fact, a stereotypical reaction from rape victims: "it wasn't rape; he was just drunk/I didn't make myself clear/I brought him to my room/he couldn't help himself/etc."
Excellent example! And then they humiliate the woman by publishing the photos without her consent.
Humiliating? Sure. Evil? Perhaps. Comparable to rape? Certainly not.
Of course it can be compared to rape. There is a clear continuum of disregard, contempt and abuse of women's right to control who sees and touches which parts of their bodies. Rape is one of the worst offenses in that continuum—usually by far.
But other things that fall in that area are rape apology ("she was asking for it"), posting your ex's sexting photos to 4chan, taking nonconsensual upskirt photos, watching porn that depicts nonconsensual upskirting, watching porn that depicts women misogynistically (which is about, um, 95% of porn), buying tabloids because they feature accidental upskirt photos of celebrities, etc.
Repeat after me: "JavaScript is Scheme in C's Clothing."
Ok, let's test this claim:
Score: 1/4. I call this a failing grade.
JS is a horrible language, but the principles it is made from are the same across all languages. It has foreach loops, it has while loops, it has if statements, it has user input and output....
I can name several languages that don't have all of those. For example, Haskell has I/O, but not really any of the other three.
No, I think he means "functional". Haven't you heard Douglas Crockford's quote that Javascript is "Lisp in C's Clothing"?
(http://www.crockford.com/javascript/javascript.html)
Every moron that wants to hype yet another crappy language as the next great thing always has compared it to Lisp. Which is stupid, since everybody hates Lisp.
Just because it is on Wikipedia does not make it true or complete. I can assure you that upskirt refers to the composition of a photo or video, not its consensuality. Dare I ask, what do you think a consensually-taken upskirt photo would be called if not also 'upskirt'
You are right. "Upskirt" very often often refers to consensually taken photographs of women who are paid to pretend that the photographer is taking nonconsensual photos up their skirts. These photos are then sold to men who wish or pretend that the photos were truly taken nonconsensually.
Further, if in the course of some other activity a woman accidentally shows her underwear on camera, that too is called a 'pantyshot' even though the camera was not there for the explicit purpose of capturing the event.
Excellent example! And then they humiliate the woman by publishing the photos without her consent.
I live in the San Francisco Peninsula, within two blocks of a Vietnamese restaurant and a Japanese take-out place that take cash only. There's also plenty of restaurants that refuse to take credit cards for bills under either $15 or $20.
your $5 Casio keeps better time
This is a misconception. Your $5 Casio will be off by a tiny fraction; e.g. 1/2 a second per day. But, it will *always* be off by the same amount, so that the error will accumulate - it will be ~3 minutes off after a year.
An analog/mechanical watch such as a Speedmaster - particularly those that are "Certified Chronometers", which are individually tested to a fairly tough standard - will drift. In hot weather they will tend to gain time, in colder weather they will tend to lose (the lubricant changes viscosity with temperature). Time will also vary depending on how often they are worn, and how active the wearer is, and how often and how much they are wound (the more wound they are, the faster they run - only by a microscopic amount, but it is measurable). So, a quality mechanical watch may vary forward and backward by more in a single day than the cheap Casio - but the errors will very often cancel themselves, so that after a year, the Omega may well keep much better time.
If you think more carefully about this, what this tells you is that the quartz watch is actually a better tool for measuring time accurately. Why? Because if its rate error is truly consistent, it can be measured and then used to correct the reading.
This method is how the old mechanical marine chronometers in ships were used to determine longitude. These clocks were designed to eliminate the rate inconsistencies you mention. Each chronometer was calibrated, set, and tested to ensure that the rate error was small and consistent, and then marked with its difference from GMT at testing date and measured rate offset. The users of the clock kept a log of the accumulated daily errors and used this to correct the clock's readings.
The point is that "keeping correct time" is not the same thing in all circumstances; change the criterion, and the quartz clock is more accurate than the mechanical one, precisely because its rate is more constant.
I then tried a purely mechanical watch (that was more expensive, of course), but it was just too heavy and huge.
This is a two-part problem. First, most people who go for mechanical watches go for automatics (i.e., self-winding), and it's really hard to make those thin and light; if you want one that's not as big, heavy and clunky as the cheaper ones, you have to pay thousands of dollars. So the best bet for small and light is handwound watches, and those just aren't as common because most folks just rule them out without thinking.
Second, too many lower-end mechanical watch buyers actually want huge flashy watches to show off as bling. So there's a huge glut of mens' mechanical watches with 38mm+ cases. Also, way too many watches with chronometers, moon phase, weird calendar mechanisms, etc. Bling bling.
The short of it is that if you want a nice, small analog watch without spending too much money, you're gonna have to go with $100+ quartz models. If you insist on mechanical, your selection will be surprisingly small, and it's really gonna cost you; the most affordable quality handwound small-case watch I've found is the Antea Kleine Sekunde, which (a) I had to order from Germany, (b) took about a month and a half for them to build and ship, (c) costs just over 400 Euro.
I used to be an analog snob until I saw an engineer at our company use the calculator on his wristwatch (before everyone one had smart phones) during a meeting to come up with a few figures... at the time I was doing a lot of grilling and timing is crucial... a digital watch worked much better, so I got one. After that, it's been great - I coached a few teams (academic and sports) and had the stop watch; the alarm clock has been great, and lot more convenient than my smart phone when I'm running down the field with my team...
You know, they do make watches with slide rules on them. Yeah, I've heard plenty of jokes about these from people who've never used one, but they're actually pretty cool, and easy to use—here are some instructions for Casio models.
First of all, cash isn't the only method for corporate acquisitions. The other one is that they buyer can trade their own equity for the purchase; "I'll give you n shares of my stock for each m shares of yours." This can be combined with cash, but cash is part of the buyer's market cap too, so to estimate one company's capacity to buy another, you look at the market cap, not at the cash reserves. GOOG are 155.99B, so they'd still have to give away more than half of their company to get half of Oracle.
Second, when a company is interested in buying a second one, they usually have to pay premium to convince the target's owners to sells. Buying Oracle would cost more than Oracle's market cap—or more precisely, a serious intent to buy Oracle would drive up Oracle's price.
Intel does ~4 billion a year in sales of the thing
Have you seen the price of Itanium kit? That's about six customers...
Have you seen how much those six customers pay? That's about 4 billion dollars...
Who claimed the paper was a test of the "languages on the market"? (Hint #1: that was not a rhetorical question. Hint #2: you're supposed to draw a conclusion from the answer.)
Let's not forget that Java strings are more similar to Pascal than to C. A string in Java is an object that encapsulates a char[], a start index and a length. So for example, taking a substring from i to j is O(1) in time and memory for Java—it just returns a new String object with the same char[] but a new start index and length.
Oh yes. Why shouldn't a GC language where the GC has to search through lists regularly instead of you telling the memory management what to clean up by giving it the pointer be faster?
Actually, your question just goes to show you don't understand the GC-vs.-malloc performance issue.
In a pure worst case time complexity analysis, assuming there are at least some objects to be collected or freed, malloc/free is costlier than stop-and-copy GC:
Of course, in practice malloc/free is faster. But this is because for completely different reasons than what you say:
In effect, part of the problem is that CPUs and VMMs are designed for the benefit of programs that use C-style memory management, and not for those who use GC.
Haskell is on the forefront of type system research right now - a lot of various experimental stuff is there, especially if you look at GHC rather than language standard. STM is also actively investigated there. Finally, due to the language being pervasively lazy, it offers some unique optimization challenges.
I'm less than completely sure about that, given things like dependently typed languages... Yes, there are hacks to simulate dependent types in Haskell, but they are hacks.
I haven't read Pinker. As an aside, I advice you to be extremely careful to believe anything he says. (And for the record, I have a similar opinion of Lakoff, one of the inventors of Conceptual Methaphor Theory...)
I just found this link which gives some brief, fundamental examples of Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Excellent brief discussion.
If you want to understand what the project in TFA is about, you're going about it the wrong way by just looking up words in the dictionary. (And as an aside, why do people think that dictionaries are somehow sophisticated tools that will tell you the true answer to any question? They're just vague rough references about what somebody might mean by using a given word.)
The right thing to look at here is Lakoff and Johnson's Conceptual Metaphor Theory, which (a) your dictionary doesn't cover, (b) is much more elaborate than what your dictionary says (because, again, dictionaries ain't supposed to be that thorough and detailed!).
You're missing that the term "metaphor" here is being used in the sense of Conceptual Metaphor Theory, where it's not just an expression that compares two unlikes without using "like"; it's a mental model of one domain in terms of another to allow reasoning about one in terms of another. Check out the link.
Why in the world anyone would choose a 1920x1080 monitor over 1920x1200 is beyond me. I can't wait until the day those bastard TV "monitors" die.
Oh, that's easy. The 1920x1080 one has the same diagonal inches, it's Full HD, and it's cheaper! What's not to like?