The horrific trip where we spent a good portion of the time with park security hoping that we will see our child again would have been caused by your own carelessness of letting your 4 year old alone in a Disneyland attraction, not for the lack of a phone.
There is a biological factor at play as well: Women do get pregnant from time to time, and men don't.
It may seem unfair or unjust, but what I stated is just a fact and nothing more.
Now what does that mean for an employer? Sometimes - more often for women than for men - it means your employee will be out of the office on pregnancy leave. And sometimes, after said leave the employee will not return for a few month to a few years. Sometimes never.
Of course, not all women are in this situation, and they all pay the price of the bias, because, for being women, they CAN do it, and from experience they will tend to do it much much more often than men.
Is discriminating against that fact unfair? Of course it is. But is asking anyone to disregard that fact when choosing between a male and a female hire any different? Well... it is also unfair.
Life's a bitch.
Re:More bias from women than from men, against wom
on
Sexism In Science
·
· Score: 0
Soon you'll be trying to let women control their own bodies.
Puulease ! Let's not get carried away my Son. The Bible clearly states The Truth: Women are underlings that we deny a soul, a job, and yes, control over their bodies.
Your should embrace The Truth or face Eternal Damnation.
All the business desktops are computers and trust me, the buyers could not care less which GC is inside. That's probably already a good 50% of the machines sold.
- I'm not a Euroskeptic and I do support Europe - YOU made the point that since the parties in power support Europe THEN the people voting for them did, hence implying the voters could not be in disagreement over a point of the program of the people they voted for. Hence my 100% which YOU implied and I did not made up as you claim. - I don't remember ANY referendum in France asking: Do you want Europe or not. I cannot say about other countries but I very strongly suspect there was very very few. - I didn't twist anything, I just pointed out how YOU used misdirection with your so called "You voted for them hence you agree to everything they are doing"
It means I decide whether I want the policy on a case by case basis. I don't care for limitations on speech, and that is what I was referring to (which I thought was obvious).
In other words, by "limiting people's freedoms," I meant, "this is not a freedom I want limited." I thought that was perfectly obvious.
Yes, of course, You, Your thoughts, the freedoms You want. But you completely obliterate the fact that every freedom YOU want not limited implies a freedom you limit for someone else. A bit self-centered, wouldn't you think?
It just proves you don't know that your freedoms are in fact limiting other's freedom.
Like my right to not be murdered limits someone's right to murder me.
Your right nor to be murdered stop (in the legal sense at least) whenever you try to kill someone. Self defense is the right to kill someone. Everyone has it. So you see? Your right not to be murdered is not universal and absolute.
I think all it proves is that you're reading too much into it and making assumptions.
And I think you're talking too much about your rights, and not enough about the rights of others. When talking about society, it doesn't serve much purpose to expose your view and just say other people's view are just stupid.
It proves you just lack empathy
There are a lot of Internet psychologists lurking about.
Allow me to read your thoughts: you don't really believe anything you just said. Your response 'proves' that you've been lying about your opinions the entire time.
Have you heard of Trolls? They are strange creatures posting stupid, unrelated, offtopic of offensive comments in public forums such as Slashdot. Just for the sake of it. Yes, some people apparently have nothing better to do than this. For reference, this stuff is posted in every Slashdot story for a while now.
On a retina display you have the exact same real estate than on a regular (equivalent) display. You just have the ability to have more precise drawings, that's all.
How the developer want to use it is really the developer concern. Apple doesn't dictate anything in this regard.
However, just having the same per-pixel ratio for apps would have rendered pretty much everything useless. Apple's approach (pixel doubling) was just the sensible one.
But to be honest, for most applications, retina means sharper display and nothing more.
You said: "limiting people's freedoms". But what the fuck does that mean? Some will want the freedom to speak. Others the freedom to have silence. Some the freedom to smoke, others the freedom to not have smoke in their face. Some the freedom to say Obama is not a US citizen. Obama the freedom to not have blatant and provable lies spread around.
EVERY freedom comes at the price of another. Saying you don't want to limit freedom is utter nonsense by the sheer definition of the words in the sentence. It just proves you don't know that your freedoms are in fact limiting other's freedom. It proves you just lack empathy and whatever you do you don't give a fuck how it impact the rest of the world.
Your first link is a very interesting link, which kind of proves that MS doesn't understand dpi since they insist on a "minimum resolution" instead of a "minimum size" for screens for the Metro UI. Way off the point.
What do you mean by "minimum size"? Like 7 inches wide? So you want MS to proclaim that all Metro apps are supposed to support a minimum of 7" width regardless of the resolution? So does that mean the apps must support a device with 320x240 resolution?
Well... everyone's talking about resolution independent interface, and that's really what it should be about. Of course, it makes no sense. So there is the Apple approach that take shortcuts that work well, and the MS approach which tries to accommodate for every fucking screen on the planet. Guess who's more efficient? Guess who will end up with an average interface that will work so-so on most configs but will look clunky on not so common screens. Interestingly that's the very same approach that did lead them to the pre-ipad tablets. Talk about learning about one's mistake.
Both links on the Apple side of the story, however, are so stupid I have to assume you haven't even had a look at them. Basically, both complain that the UI elements have the same size on the MacBook Retina than on a normal MacBook !!!
They're no more stupid than TFA, which I suggest you read, and which complains about the same problem with scaling up graphics on the web.
I was not comparing to TFA. I was just mentioning that apart from asserting that their author is utterly clueless, they pretty much serve no purpose.
They chose to build their own hardware specifically so that they don't have to solve unsolvable problems. To me, it looks like they are the smart one in this fight.
But sure, blame it on Apple for taking a highly risky path to solve important problems hardware wise because it's so much simpler.
In the meantime I am entertained to see MS struggle to tackle a problem clearly too big for them. Windows 8 will soon be there with so many stupid design decisions in it, like, I don't know, having 4 different modes for their browser. As if testing IE7, IE8 and IE9 wasn't enough, we'll now have to add IE10 Desktop, IE10 Metro, IE10 Webview, IE10 WebviewMetro and IE10MicrosoftIsFullOfShitICantTakeItAnymoreHowCanAnyCompanyBeSoStupid
But please, give them your money. Support the good fight.
the situation you presented is not only highly unlikely, but results due to someone's stupidity
I believe you are anti religion on that one. But even without the priests there are a shitload of people doing improper things with children - even only with words - screwing them up for good. If you think it is unlikely the only reason can be that you have no fucking clue how common it is. If I could pinpoint one of the most prevalent cause of shit in our society, that would be the one, no contest.
Of course, shielding the children is going the opposite way. But exposing them to too much shit is also bad. As with everything in life, it's the middle ground that is ideal, and this middle ground is different for all children.
I don't believe the fact that it doesn't work in some cases justifies limiting people's freedoms
I see. You are one of those people that consider that freedom to hit your neighbor is higher than the freedom of not being hit. Fine by me. Hopefully you don't make the rules.
Your first link is a very interesting link, which kind of proves that MS doesn't understand dpi since they insist on a "minimum resolution" instead of a "minimum size" for screens for the Metro UI. Way off the point.
Both links on the Apple side of the story, however, are so stupid I have to assume you haven't even had a look at them. Basically, both complain that the UI elements have the same size on the MacBook Retina than on a normal MacBook !!! Right from your second link: "This configuration should offer amazing detail but you don’t actually get any more desktop space". Well, guess what: That was the point, very precisely.
Overall you just proved that MS doesn't know what they are doing and Apple does. Nice way to illustrate an anti MS bashfest. Wait... wasn't that your intent?
Granted, this is about a five year old. However, the likelihood of this occurring seems to be extremely small in the first place.
I do not see a problem.
Right, and child porn is not a problem either. Nor is pedophilia. Do you realize you do not have to do anything to do any of those things other than convincing the kid to do it himself?
I don't know what your ideal world looks like, but I most certainly do not want any of it. Education is one of the most powerful tools we have, I agree on that one. But it's no magic bullet. How will you deal with handicapped or disturbed people? Educate them? Is education your cure to any kind of psychological disorder? Good luck with that.
Do you mean to say that everyone supporting a party supports every bullet point of the program of said party? All members adheres 100.00% to all ideas and proposals of said party?
I don't know which world you live in, but that's not mine.
We support the less worse party, or, in other words, the party that shares the most common views with us. They still do stupid stuff and we know about it in advance.
Slashdot Mirror
Believe me, I upgraded to iOS6 and never saw the difference to an App I very rarely used.
Waze is phenomenal.
Ah, and when you upgrade, take a look at that Panoramic option in the Camera. It is great.
I sincerely hope you're joking.
The horrific trip where we spent a good portion of the time with park security hoping that we will see our child again would have been caused by your own carelessness of letting your 4 year old alone in a Disneyland attraction, not for the lack of a phone.
The Queen not so much, but all the Lords most certainly pull most strings in the country.
There is a biological factor at play as well: Women do get pregnant from time to time, and men don't.
It may seem unfair or unjust, but what I stated is just a fact and nothing more.
Now what does that mean for an employer? Sometimes - more often for women than for men - it means your employee will be out of the office on pregnancy leave. And sometimes, after said leave the employee will not return for a few month to a few years. Sometimes never.
Of course, not all women are in this situation, and they all pay the price of the bias, because, for being women, they CAN do it, and from experience they will tend to do it much much more often than men.
Is discriminating against that fact unfair? Of course it is. But is asking anyone to disregard that fact when choosing between a male and a female hire any different? Well... it is also unfair.
Life's a bitch.
Soon you'll be trying to let women control their own bodies.
Puulease ! Let's not get carried away my Son. The Bible clearly states The Truth: Women are underlings that we deny a soul, a job, and yes, control over their bodies.
Your should embrace The Truth or face Eternal Damnation.
You've been warned.
All the business desktops are computers and trust me, the buyers could not care less which GC is inside. That's probably already a good 50% of the machines sold.
The type of company Google is is 115% irrelevant to the point made by the FP.
Thanks for participating.
So you're telling me there is a version of MS Office I can run in my browser offline? Please point me to it.
BTW, I have no clue what sardonic means. Did you mean sarcastic?
Ok, I'll answer quickly:
- I'm not a Euroskeptic and I do support Europe
- YOU made the point that since the parties in power support Europe THEN the people voting for them did, hence implying the voters could not be in disagreement over a point of the program of the people they voted for. Hence my 100% which YOU implied and I did not made up as you claim.
- I don't remember ANY referendum in France asking: Do you want Europe or not. I cannot say about other countries but I very strongly suspect there was very very few.
- I didn't twist anything, I just pointed out how YOU used misdirection with your so called "You voted for them hence you agree to everything they are doing"
Apple crushed itself near death with it's own CEO, Microsoft just happened to be there at the time.
But what the fuck does that mean?
It means I decide whether I want the policy on a case by case basis. I don't care for limitations on speech, and that is what I was referring to (which I thought was obvious).
In other words, by "limiting people's freedoms," I meant, "this is not a freedom I want limited." I thought that was perfectly obvious.
Yes, of course, You, Your thoughts, the freedoms You want. But you completely obliterate the fact that every freedom YOU want not limited implies a freedom you limit for someone else. A bit self-centered, wouldn't you think?
It just proves you don't know that your freedoms are in fact limiting other's freedom.
Like my right to not be murdered limits someone's right to murder me.
Your right nor to be murdered stop (in the legal sense at least) whenever you try to kill someone. Self defense is the right to kill someone. Everyone has it. So you see? Your right not to be murdered is not universal and absolute.
I think all it proves is that you're reading too much into it and making assumptions.
And I think you're talking too much about your rights, and not enough about the rights of others. When talking about society, it doesn't serve much purpose to expose your view and just say other people's view are just stupid.
It proves you just lack empathy
There are a lot of Internet psychologists lurking about.
Allow me to read your thoughts: you don't really believe anything you just said. Your response 'proves' that you've been lying about your opinions the entire time.
Ok.
Have you heard of Trolls? They are strange creatures posting stupid, unrelated, offtopic of offensive comments in public forums such as Slashdot. Just for the sake of it. Yes, some people apparently have nothing better to do than this. For reference, this stuff is posted in every Slashdot story for a while now.
MS Office in JAVASCRIPT? Holy cow, I need to see that.
Wait... Are you sure there's not a few million lines of C# running on the server as well?
It wasn't really clear in the short article
Do you mean to say Slashdot's summary? If so, you are correct. Is it rarely clear but often plain misleading or even just wrong.
On a retina display you have the exact same real estate than on a regular (equivalent) display. You just have the ability to have more precise drawings, that's all.
How the developer want to use it is really the developer concern. Apple doesn't dictate anything in this regard.
However, just having the same per-pixel ratio for apps would have rendered pretty much everything useless. Apple's approach (pixel doubling) was just the sensible one.
But to be honest, for most applications, retina means sharper display and nothing more.
Depends on what we're talking about.
You said: "limiting people's freedoms". But what the fuck does that mean? Some will want the freedom to speak. Others the freedom to have silence. Some the freedom to smoke, others the freedom to not have smoke in their face. Some the freedom to say Obama is not a US citizen. Obama the freedom to not have blatant and provable lies spread around.
EVERY freedom comes at the price of another. Saying you don't want to limit freedom is utter nonsense by the sheer definition of the words in the sentence. It just proves you don't know that your freedoms are in fact limiting other's freedom. It proves you just lack empathy and whatever you do you don't give a fuck how it impact the rest of the world.
Your first link is a very interesting link, which kind of proves that MS doesn't understand dpi since they insist on a "minimum resolution" instead of a "minimum size" for screens for the Metro UI. Way off the point.
What do you mean by "minimum size"? Like 7 inches wide? So you want MS to proclaim that all Metro apps are supposed to support a minimum of 7" width regardless of the resolution? So does that mean the apps must support a device with 320x240 resolution?
Well... everyone's talking about resolution independent interface, and that's really what it should be about. Of course, it makes no sense. So there is the Apple approach that take shortcuts that work well, and the MS approach which tries to accommodate for every fucking screen on the planet. Guess who's more efficient? Guess who will end up with an average interface that will work so-so on most configs but will look clunky on not so common screens. Interestingly that's the very same approach that did lead them to the pre-ipad tablets. Talk about learning about one's mistake.
Both links on the Apple side of the story, however, are so stupid I have to assume you haven't even had a look at them. Basically, both complain that the UI elements have the same size on the MacBook Retina than on a normal MacBook !!!
They're no more stupid than TFA, which I suggest you read, and which complains about the same problem with scaling up graphics on the web.
I was not comparing to TFA. I was just mentioning that apart from asserting that their author is utterly clueless, they pretty much serve no purpose.
They chose to build their own hardware specifically so that they don't have to solve unsolvable problems. To me, it looks like they are the smart one in this fight.
But sure, blame it on Apple for taking a highly risky path to solve important problems hardware wise because it's so much simpler.
In the meantime I am entertained to see MS struggle to tackle a problem clearly too big for them. Windows 8 will soon be there with so many stupid design decisions in it, like, I don't know, having 4 different modes for their browser. As if testing IE7, IE8 and IE9 wasn't enough, we'll now have to add IE10 Desktop, IE10 Metro, IE10 Webview, IE10 WebviewMetro and IE10MicrosoftIsFullOfShitICantTakeItAnymoreHowCanAnyCompanyBeSoStupid
But please, give them your money. Support the good fight.
Did you even read those links? For god's sake, they prove MY point !
the situation you presented is not only highly unlikely, but results due to someone's stupidity
I believe you are anti religion on that one. But even without the priests there are a shitload of people doing improper things with children - even only with words - screwing them up for good. If you think it is unlikely the only reason can be that you have no fucking clue how common it is. If I could pinpoint one of the most prevalent cause of shit in our society, that would be the one, no contest.
Of course, shielding the children is going the opposite way. But exposing them to too much shit is also bad. As with everything in life, it's the middle ground that is ideal, and this middle ground is different for all children.
I don't believe the fact that it doesn't work in some cases justifies limiting people's freedoms
I see. You are one of those people that consider that freedom to hit your neighbor is higher than the freedom of not being hit. Fine by me. Hopefully you don't make the rules.
Yeah, is there any OS that handles this quite right?
iOS and OSX. And that's all. Of course, you get the whole Apple package in which there might be elements you dislike.
Your first link is a very interesting link, which kind of proves that MS doesn't understand dpi since they insist on a "minimum resolution" instead of a "minimum size" for screens for the Metro UI. Way off the point.
Both links on the Apple side of the story, however, are so stupid I have to assume you haven't even had a look at them. Basically, both complain that the UI elements have the same size on the MacBook Retina than on a normal MacBook !!! Right from your second link: "This configuration should offer amazing detail but you don’t actually get any more desktop space". Well, guess what: That was the point, very precisely.
Overall you just proved that MS doesn't know what they are doing and Apple does. Nice way to illustrate an anti MS bashfest. Wait... wasn't that your intent?
Granted, this is about a five year old. However, the likelihood of this occurring seems to be extremely small in the first place.
I do not see a problem.
Right, and child porn is not a problem either. Nor is pedophilia. Do you realize you do not have to do anything to do any of those things other than convincing the kid to do it himself?
I don't know what your ideal world looks like, but I most certainly do not want any of it. Education is one of the most powerful tools we have, I agree on that one. But it's no magic bullet. How will you deal with handicapped or disturbed people? Educate them? Is education your cure to any kind of psychological disorder? Good luck with that.
Do you mean to say that everyone supporting a party supports every bullet point of the program of said party? All members adheres 100.00% to all ideas and proposals of said party?
I don't know which world you live in, but that's not mine.
We support the less worse party, or, in other words, the party that shares the most common views with us. They still do stupid stuff and we know about it in advance.
Just to be clear: Do you think what I told the 5 year old kid is morally acceptable?
If yes, I'm sorry for you, really.
If no, do you think society should have structures in place to deal with such behavior?
If yes, why not make a law about it?
If no, well, how do you think society should deal with this? Or should it?