What the hell are we supposed to do with this information?
Probably nothing. I love eggs but even taking into account a day where I might have an egg for breakfast, some mayo on a sandwich at lunch, and maybe a slice of cake for desert, I can't think of any way in which I've eaten three in one day. Not even if I've done those things and had two eggs in the morning (how much egg is in a slice of cake and a smear of mayo anyway?)
...which leads to the obvious question: is it possible that the kind of person who eats three eggs a day is also the kind of person with a high risk of heart disease due to his or her lifestyle? I mean, this is such an unlikely diet it's hard for me to believe anyone other than someone eating really badly and unhealthily is likely to have it.
How did the three-eggs-a-day people compare to the control group? Was there even a control group?
It's browser bloat. It's not as if the web pages you're downloading are gigabytes in size, otherwise you'd use all your cellphone's data allowance in five pages.
Browsers like to cache enormous amounts of data, and that's where it starts getting really ugly. There's a good chance the entire page you're reading right now is stored in part as a giant bitmap so that your browser can scroll it without having to redraw it in real time. And if you think that's odd, it gets worse, because even if it isn't, the chances are it's storing large numbers of bitmaps containing rendered versions of parts of the page.
Bitmaps aren't the only ways browsers use monstrous amounts of memory, but they're an easy to explain part of it.
That said, there's some stupid shit Javascript provides that encourages pages to leak memory. Closures are notorious for being difficult to garbage collect - if jQuery's waiting for an AJAX call that never comes, it'll have a link somewhere to the function that's supposed to accept the response, plus the entire context of the thing that called it, indefinitely.
I know it's 20 years ago, but there are some problems with this: I'm guessing you're talking about Windows 95, because 64Mb was a fairly normal amount of memory when Windows 98 was released. I have personal experience of walking through a major corporation's offices in 1999 where virtually every computer had 64Mb, and we thought that was rather odd and would make it harder for us to provide the application we wanted to provide for them because it was considered on the low end, even then.
Also a missing address line wouldn't result in 48Mb being available, but 32Mb.
Windows 95... well, back then I recall 8Mb was considered the bare minimum, with 16Mb being the real minimum amount of memory needed to run it. Microsoft recommended half these amounts, but I know it was a dog in 8Mb. Windows 98 had an official minimum requirement of 16Mb of RAM, you can probably guess where this is going.
Anyway, sorry, I'm being pedantic. You're probably right about the overall arch of the story, that a motherboard didn't support the amount of memory it claimed on the box, but in practice that's not unusual. That's why there are usually "Rev. 2" motherboards, motherboards with bug fixes. Dell et al usually built a large number and find out it's too late to fix them when the bug is revealed, and their choice are "Send them out and offer free upgrades to anyone encountering the bug" or "Spend money destroying motherboards that most people will find usable."
I've heard worse. The worst was the Commodore 64's. Late in the development process they discovered a bug relating to the interaction of the serial chip used to communicate with disk drives, the video chip, and the processor, which meant that the chip wouldn't talk to disk drives at the normal speed without losing data.
Rather than going the "Get it out now and we'll ship a dongle for those who need it and fix it in the next motherboard" (which would have been relatively easy), they just reduced the speed of the serial port to a few tens of bytes a second, and built that into the spec for successive motherboards, so meaning every Commodore 64 had the same problem. That's why disk drives were chronically slow on the C64: the VIC 20, which didn't have as much memory (and so didn't need a fast disk drive) didn't have the problem. And the C64 loaded data from disk slower than the Sinclair computers loaded data from tape.
While this may be true, and I see a cost difference, I'm not seeing one that that changes $30 into $300, more like $50 like you're saying. So it doesn't really change the question of why are they still sticking high latency mechanical drives in an entry level high end personal computer in 2019.
And... let's pretend for a moment NVMe does cost $300 for "enough storage", well, they're putting in a SATA interface anyway, so why not add the cheap $30-60 drive, rather than a magnetic disc? The only problem with it is likely to be performance, and it's still going to perform extremely well compared to a magnetic equivalent. And make the computer lighter. And less sensitive to movement. And will mean they can reduce the size a little or put more of something else in (I've yet to see a 3.5" SSD drive, I'm sure they exist, but I'm not seeing one.)
All in all it doesn't make sense. I can understand Gateway wanting to put in a magnetic drive to meet a $399 price point for something with "arbitrary marketing friendly storage amount here" gigabytes of disk space, but it makes no sense in this context.
What's the price difference between a 240Gb SSD and whatever it is Apple's shoving in this thing? For reference, the street price of a 240Gb SSD is about $30. Is 240Gb too small for an entry level computer? Well, street price for half a terabyte is $70.
Looking at prices, I think we've reached the point where "enough storage" is available in both SSD and spinning disk form for the same minimum amount of money. The price per GB is higher with SSD, but the floor is much, much, lower, which means the cross-over point where SSD and magnetic is now at a level where you're talking usable amounts of storage. For that reason, there's no reason to exclude SSD from an entry level system unless you're trying to punish the customer for buying cheap hardware.
At this stage magnetic discs are what cheapskates like me use to build a 1Tb i5 system for $400, not what a premium computer company should be using in its $1,000 personal computers. The only other legitimate use of them is for building external storage systems you'd make back-ups to, be they USB or NASes.
And how do you propose to do that given the massive costs of laying new infrastructure?
And why would that magically give us net neutrality? Aren't we more likely to see a race to the bottom as companies realize they can use traffic discrimination to create new tiers of service, allowing them to advertise a lower base rate? "Comcast charges $60 for broadband, but here at Honest Z80a's we charge just $5! Plus, choose from any of the following $10 add-ons: Social Networking Pack, Wikipedia Pack, News and Sport pack, Alt-News pack with FOX(tm), Movies Pack, and Music Pack!"
If you're about to shake your head and say no, that'll never happen because competition is perfect, that's how the airline industry works right now, it's how satellite vs cable has been working for decades, hell, you can't buy a car without theoretically optional but not really features from being omitted from the sticker price.
Why would Internet access be any different in an environment where ISPs fear only their competitors, not regulators who are, in a perfect world, answerable to the public, and in an imperfect world, at least under the control of politicians being lobbied by the Internet businesses screwed over by anti-NN policies?
No, I'm not the one with faith in management here. I'm the one saying they're bullshitting about what happened. You guys are the ones saying "Yeah, sounds legit".
The probability that a server upgrade has resulted in them losing everything before a certain date is pretty much zero.
The company has been bought multiple times, not the site. You make it sound when it was sold to Murdoch they just stuck the server in a box, printed of a label using eBay's USPS shipping label service, and said "Bye!"
The company has probably seen a fair amount of staff turnover, but I doubt something as core as "who maintains the servers" has not had reasonable continuity since shortly after MySpace became a thing.
I mean that literally. It's impossible to believe there are literally no backups at all, still less that this was all lost as a result of a server migration (what is this, is it run on an old 166MHz Pentium in the closet? Did they take the 40Mb IDE hard drive out of one containing EVERYTHING ON MYSPACE and slot it into the brand new spiffy Intel Core i5 they bought from eBay?)
The real question is why does MySpace not want to restore the old data? To which the answer could be anything from "They want to reduce bandwidth and storage costs because they're broke" to "They found a shitload of stuff that could get them into trouble and have no time to sift through decades of data."
While I don't agree Texas should ban anyone, least of all the manufacturer, from repairing Teslas, if third parties are unable to repair Teslas then that would also be a serious problem, and would be one warranting government intervention. You shouldn't be dependent upon a manufacturer to have their products repaired.
But the article (at least, the summary) seems to imply he doesn't actually do any editing. Instead he lobbies editors for a point of view, and persuades them to make the changes by bombarding the talk page with citations and making use of Wikipedia's bureaucratic legalese.
Which makes sense, because for-profit editors are already banned. You're usually forbidden from working on any article you have any direct interest in. To the point of silliness: I recall a famous author being unable to remove a false statement in his own bio because he couldn't edit it, and other editors refused to do it because he couldn't cite a third party.
Nah, this just sounds like the same stupid zoning shit you get everywhere in the US. Chicago is nominally a city, or is at least on the interior, so it's not immediately obvious that the same stuff applies to Anytown USA stuff, but it does.
Most countries do not zone in the same way as the US does where the precise use of a property is strictly controlled. Instead the cities regulate the effects of business, using noise ordinances, pollution/environmental laws, etc, to prevent a location from being a nuisance to its neighbors. So it's easy to run a grocery store or a pub or a restaurant in the middle of a mostly residential area, but if you want to put an automobile repair shop there, you're going to have to make it the world's quietest automobile repair shop or else face so many fines you'll be out of business within a month.
The US doesn't do this, and there's a reason for that: lobbying by car companies. People need to be able to reach the businesses that serve and employ them. By forcing people to live in large areas that contain no businesses, you're forcing them to make journeys that are usually too far to do by foot, and by creating a patchwork of "zones" with no center, you're making it impossible for public transit to profitably (or at least sustainably) provide those journeys.
That's what's going on here. The business hasn't been regulated out of existence, in fact REGULATION WOULD HAVE HELPED IT. Regulation would have meant that as long as it complied with reasonable noise and environmental rules (which by all accounts it would have done) it would have done fine. It's instead been ZONED out of existence, legally banned from operating where it is because the type of business its in is banned.
What's ironic is that Reason usually is one of the chief cheerleaders for this kind of shit. It'd be nice for them to recognize zoning is stupid and anti-freedom, but I suspect they'll be back to promoting free parking mandates and bans on high density mixed use development next week anyway.
Seriously, if it's safe, and not a nuisance (smelly, emitting pollution, or whatever), why do you care that it's technically a landfill transfer station?
Nobody's young who runs for President, there's a minimum age of 35. Yes, there's a lower age of the scale, but let's not call people "young" without qualifying it, candidates for the Presidency are required by the constitution to be either close to middle age or older.
I raise that because it does point out an inherent bias in our government. It's not the only one, but it's there.
There's a difference between claiming minority status and writing that you think you have native American blood on a student card. Her DNA test showed that actually she was correct in believing she had, and didn't lie on that either.
Her student ID wasn't the source of the controversy, it was that she was listed as being in a minority by her employer.
(One of the most abusive types of moderation is to make people think you're arguing something that you're not, by removing clarifications. If you're thinking of abusing your mod privileges here, do me a favor: kill yourself instead. You are a net negative to people on this planet, you make things worse, and you should be utterly ashamed of yourself.)
There's a difference between claiming minority status and writing that you think you have native American blood on a student card. Her DNA test showed that actually she was correct in believing she had, and didn't lie on that either.
Her student ID wasn't the source of the controversy, it was that she was listed as being in a minority by her employer.
Our industry and community seems socially inept and has brought us such innovations as the destruction of privacy, the propagation of hate, and the commercialization of false information. And I'm supposed to feel better about Beto because he's a part of that shit?
Not looking forward to the primaries, none of the candidates are ideal, Warren's incompetent even if her heart's in the right place, Harris has that slick tells-you-what-you-wanna-hear Obama like quality, Sanders is the Democrat's Ron Paul, and everyone else is just... urgh. Beto? Unless he backtracks and distances himself from ever being associated with jackasses like me I'm not seeing a great reason to vote for him.
Warren never lied about anything. She overshared responding to an attack (her employer wrongfully listed her as a minority, she said she wasn't but mentioned in passing that she had heard there was Native American blood in her family via a distant relative, and was promptly attacked for it - despite it turning out to be true. And then she was attacked for it being true, because people were treating her proof as being something to do with providing she was a minority, which she never claimed, rather than her proving the family story was accurate.)
Warren is politically incompetent based upon this episode, but it's inaccurate to call her a liar, just probably not Presidential material... at least, she wouldn't be in a world where the phrase "Presidential material" means anything at all, which based upon the last election is not the universe we live in.
Don't trust anyone, including the person you're married to because you trust them?
Kinda awkward.
I agree it's what everyone should do, it's just not good advice, because there's literally no set of circumstances in which it'd be followed. If you don't trust your partner, you're probably not going to let them film you already.
Works for me, and I clicked on the (i)(shield)(lock) menu and it reported "Trackers: blocking, Cookies: Blocking tracking cookies", so am I looking in the wrong place or has the website been fixed since you last went there?
There were plenty of smartphones in existence when Apple produced the iPhone. And plenty when it produced the unrelated iPod too. Nokia, Ericsson, Palm, Blackberry and others had smartphones out during the late 1990s.
Apple didn't even produce the first iPhone-like iPhone, that would be the LG Prada. There's ample evidence the iPhone was a direct rip off with Apple changing mid stream to clone the Prada when they saw it in action (early versions of iOS had a completely different UI philosophy.)
You've never used an iPod have you? There is pretty much nothing in common between the iPods (that were on sale before the iPhone that is, obviously the iPod Touch is a phoneless iPhone but that postdates the iPhone) and the iPhone. It absolutely wasn't the iPhone's predecessor, in function, technology, or anything else.
That doesn't seem like a comparable situation. Amazon is allowing competitors to sell products via its platform to a group of people who have no dependence upon Amazon. Additionally I'm guessing Amazon has no rules in place forcing products bought from them to only accept add-ons that are also bought from Amazon - that is, if you buy a PC from Amazon, you're not bound to buy PC software and graphics cards from Amazon.
The Apple situation is somewhat different. You're not paying Apple to promote something to a customer base that buys a lot of stuff from Apple. You're paying Apple for fundamental access to the people who buy Apple's phones. They've taken technical measures to prevent anyone from selling directly, and Apple not only controls that, but also requires any follow up content - like books and movies for apps that show them - also have Apple taking a cut.
Someone who wants to sell me a graphics card can choose to sell via Amazon or not. When I do a search on Amazon they won't show up if they don't list there, but if I'm buying something that expensive I'm going to also search a bunch of other websites too.
Someone who wants to sell me an iPhone app cannot choose to not list via Apple. I can't buy their software unless I buy it from Apple.
Based upon that, you can't compare the pricing. Is Amazon's apparently high? Yes. Does it mean Apple's prices are reasonable? Nope. Amazon's lack of anything resembling a monopoly here means that Amazon must be selling something of value. Apple, on the other hand, is taking advantage of its control of the platform.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm confused, what is off-topic about the above?
Probably nothing. I love eggs but even taking into account a day where I might have an egg for breakfast, some mayo on a sandwich at lunch, and maybe a slice of cake for desert, I can't think of any way in which I've eaten three in one day. Not even if I've done those things and had two eggs in the morning (how much egg is in a slice of cake and a smear of mayo anyway?)
How did the three-eggs-a-day people compare to the control group? Was there even a control group?
It's browser bloat. It's not as if the web pages you're downloading are gigabytes in size, otherwise you'd use all your cellphone's data allowance in five pages.
Browsers like to cache enormous amounts of data, and that's where it starts getting really ugly. There's a good chance the entire page you're reading right now is stored in part as a giant bitmap so that your browser can scroll it without having to redraw it in real time. And if you think that's odd, it gets worse, because even if it isn't, the chances are it's storing large numbers of bitmaps containing rendered versions of parts of the page.
Bitmaps aren't the only ways browsers use monstrous amounts of memory, but they're an easy to explain part of it.
That said, there's some stupid shit Javascript provides that encourages pages to leak memory. Closures are notorious for being difficult to garbage collect - if jQuery's waiting for an AJAX call that never comes, it'll have a link somewhere to the function that's supposed to accept the response, plus the entire context of the thing that called it, indefinitely.
I know it's 20 years ago, but there are some problems with this: I'm guessing you're talking about Windows 95, because 64Mb was a fairly normal amount of memory when Windows 98 was released. I have personal experience of walking through a major corporation's offices in 1999 where virtually every computer had 64Mb, and we thought that was rather odd and would make it harder for us to provide the application we wanted to provide for them because it was considered on the low end, even then.
Also a missing address line wouldn't result in 48Mb being available, but 32Mb.
Windows 95... well, back then I recall 8Mb was considered the bare minimum, with 16Mb being the real minimum amount of memory needed to run it. Microsoft recommended half these amounts, but I know it was a dog in 8Mb. Windows 98 had an official minimum requirement of 16Mb of RAM, you can probably guess where this is going.
Anyway, sorry, I'm being pedantic. You're probably right about the overall arch of the story, that a motherboard didn't support the amount of memory it claimed on the box, but in practice that's not unusual. That's why there are usually "Rev. 2" motherboards, motherboards with bug fixes. Dell et al usually built a large number and find out it's too late to fix them when the bug is revealed, and their choice are "Send them out and offer free upgrades to anyone encountering the bug" or "Spend money destroying motherboards that most people will find usable."
I've heard worse. The worst was the Commodore 64's. Late in the development process they discovered a bug relating to the interaction of the serial chip used to communicate with disk drives, the video chip, and the processor, which meant that the chip wouldn't talk to disk drives at the normal speed without losing data.
Rather than going the "Get it out now and we'll ship a dongle for those who need it and fix it in the next motherboard" (which would have been relatively easy), they just reduced the speed of the serial port to a few tens of bytes a second, and built that into the spec for successive motherboards, so meaning every Commodore 64 had the same problem. That's why disk drives were chronically slow on the C64: the VIC 20, which didn't have as much memory (and so didn't need a fast disk drive) didn't have the problem. And the C64 loaded data from disk slower than the Sinclair computers loaded data from tape.
While this may be true, and I see a cost difference, I'm not seeing one that that changes $30 into $300, more like $50 like you're saying. So it doesn't really change the question of why are they still sticking high latency mechanical drives in an entry level high end personal computer in 2019.
And... let's pretend for a moment NVMe does cost $300 for "enough storage", well, they're putting in a SATA interface anyway, so why not add the cheap $30-60 drive, rather than a magnetic disc? The only problem with it is likely to be performance, and it's still going to perform extremely well compared to a magnetic equivalent. And make the computer lighter. And less sensitive to movement. And will mean they can reduce the size a little or put more of something else in (I've yet to see a 3.5" SSD drive, I'm sure they exist, but I'm not seeing one.)
All in all it doesn't make sense. I can understand Gateway wanting to put in a magnetic drive to meet a $399 price point for something with "arbitrary marketing friendly storage amount here" gigabytes of disk space, but it makes no sense in this context.
What's the price difference between a 240Gb SSD and whatever it is Apple's shoving in this thing? For reference, the street price of a 240Gb SSD is about $30. Is 240Gb too small for an entry level computer? Well, street price for half a terabyte is $70.
Looking at prices, I think we've reached the point where "enough storage" is available in both SSD and spinning disk form for the same minimum amount of money. The price per GB is higher with SSD, but the floor is much, much, lower, which means the cross-over point where SSD and magnetic is now at a level where you're talking usable amounts of storage. For that reason, there's no reason to exclude SSD from an entry level system unless you're trying to punish the customer for buying cheap hardware.
At this stage magnetic discs are what cheapskates like me use to build a 1Tb i5 system for $400, not what a premium computer company should be using in its $1,000 personal computers. The only other legitimate use of them is for building external storage systems you'd make back-ups to, be they USB or NASes.
And how do you propose to do that given the massive costs of laying new infrastructure?
And why would that magically give us net neutrality? Aren't we more likely to see a race to the bottom as companies realize they can use traffic discrimination to create new tiers of service, allowing them to advertise a lower base rate? "Comcast charges $60 for broadband, but here at Honest Z80a's we charge just $5! Plus, choose from any of the following $10 add-ons: Social Networking Pack, Wikipedia Pack, News and Sport pack, Alt-News pack with FOX(tm), Movies Pack, and Music Pack!"
If you're about to shake your head and say no, that'll never happen because competition is perfect, that's how the airline industry works right now, it's how satellite vs cable has been working for decades, hell, you can't buy a car without theoretically optional but not really features from being omitted from the sticker price.
Why would Internet access be any different in an environment where ISPs fear only their competitors, not regulators who are, in a perfect world, answerable to the public, and in an imperfect world, at least under the control of politicians being lobbied by the Internet businesses screwed over by anti-NN policies?
No, I'm not the one with faith in management here. I'm the one saying they're bullshitting about what happened. You guys are the ones saying "Yeah, sounds legit".
The probability that a server upgrade has resulted in them losing everything before a certain date is pretty much zero.
The company has been bought multiple times, not the site. You make it sound when it was sold to Murdoch they just stuck the server in a box, printed of a label using eBay's USPS shipping label service, and said "Bye!"
The company has probably seen a fair amount of staff turnover, but I doubt something as core as "who maintains the servers" has not had reasonable continuity since shortly after MySpace became a thing.
I mean that literally. It's impossible to believe there are literally no backups at all, still less that this was all lost as a result of a server migration (what is this, is it run on an old 166MHz Pentium in the closet? Did they take the 40Mb IDE hard drive out of one containing EVERYTHING ON MYSPACE and slot it into the brand new spiffy Intel Core i5 they bought from eBay?)
The real question is why does MySpace not want to restore the old data? To which the answer could be anything from "They want to reduce bandwidth and storage costs because they're broke" to "They found a shitload of stuff that could get them into trouble and have no time to sift through decades of data."
While I don't agree Texas should ban anyone, least of all the manufacturer, from repairing Teslas, if third parties are unable to repair Teslas then that would also be a serious problem, and would be one warranting government intervention. You shouldn't be dependent upon a manufacturer to have their products repaired.
But the article (at least, the summary) seems to imply he doesn't actually do any editing. Instead he lobbies editors for a point of view, and persuades them to make the changes by bombarding the talk page with citations and making use of Wikipedia's bureaucratic legalese.
Which makes sense, because for-profit editors are already banned. You're usually forbidden from working on any article you have any direct interest in. To the point of silliness: I recall a famous author being unable to remove a false statement in his own bio because he couldn't edit it, and other editors refused to do it because he couldn't cite a third party.
Nah, this just sounds like the same stupid zoning shit you get everywhere in the US. Chicago is nominally a city, or is at least on the interior, so it's not immediately obvious that the same stuff applies to Anytown USA stuff, but it does.
Most countries do not zone in the same way as the US does where the precise use of a property is strictly controlled. Instead the cities regulate the effects of business, using noise ordinances, pollution/environmental laws, etc, to prevent a location from being a nuisance to its neighbors. So it's easy to run a grocery store or a pub or a restaurant in the middle of a mostly residential area, but if you want to put an automobile repair shop there, you're going to have to make it the world's quietest automobile repair shop or else face so many fines you'll be out of business within a month.
The US doesn't do this, and there's a reason for that: lobbying by car companies. People need to be able to reach the businesses that serve and employ them. By forcing people to live in large areas that contain no businesses, you're forcing them to make journeys that are usually too far to do by foot, and by creating a patchwork of "zones" with no center, you're making it impossible for public transit to profitably (or at least sustainably) provide those journeys.
That's what's going on here. The business hasn't been regulated out of existence, in fact REGULATION WOULD HAVE HELPED IT. Regulation would have meant that as long as it complied with reasonable noise and environmental rules (which by all accounts it would have done) it would have done fine. It's instead been ZONED out of existence, legally banned from operating where it is because the type of business its in is banned.
What's ironic is that Reason usually is one of the chief cheerleaders for this kind of shit. It'd be nice for them to recognize zoning is stupid and anti-freedom, but I suspect they'll be back to promoting free parking mandates and bans on high density mixed use development next week anyway.
Who gives a shit?
Seriously, if it's safe, and not a nuisance (smelly, emitting pollution, or whatever), why do you care that it's technically a landfill transfer station?
Nobody's young who runs for President, there's a minimum age of 35. Yes, there's a lower age of the scale, but let's not call people "young" without qualifying it, candidates for the Presidency are required by the constitution to be either close to middle age or older.
I raise that because it does point out an inherent bias in our government. It's not the only one, but it's there.
There's a difference between claiming minority status and writing that you think you have native American blood on a student card. Her DNA test showed that actually she was correct in believing she had, and didn't lie on that either.
Her student ID wasn't the source of the controversy, it was that she was listed as being in a minority by her employer.
(One of the most abusive types of moderation is to make people think you're arguing something that you're not, by removing clarifications. If you're thinking of abusing your mod privileges here, do me a favor: kill yourself instead. You are a net negative to people on this planet, you make things worse, and you should be utterly ashamed of yourself.)
There's a difference between claiming minority status and writing that you think you have native American blood on a student card. Her DNA test showed that actually she was correct in believing she had, and didn't lie on that either.
Her student ID wasn't the source of the controversy, it was that she was listed as being in a minority by her employer.
Good job you know Beto personally, otherwise you'd never have gotten that information.
Our industry and community seems socially inept and has brought us such innovations as the destruction of privacy, the propagation of hate, and the commercialization of false information. And I'm supposed to feel better about Beto because he's a part of that shit?
Not looking forward to the primaries, none of the candidates are ideal, Warren's incompetent even if her heart's in the right place, Harris has that slick tells-you-what-you-wanna-hear Obama like quality, Sanders is the Democrat's Ron Paul, and everyone else is just... urgh. Beto? Unless he backtracks and distances himself from ever being associated with jackasses like me I'm not seeing a great reason to vote for him.
Warren never lied about anything. She overshared responding to an attack (her employer wrongfully listed her as a minority, she said she wasn't but mentioned in passing that she had heard there was Native American blood in her family via a distant relative, and was promptly attacked for it - despite it turning out to be true. And then she was attacked for it being true, because people were treating her proof as being something to do with providing she was a minority, which she never claimed, rather than her proving the family story was accurate.)
Warren is politically incompetent based upon this episode, but it's inaccurate to call her a liar, just probably not Presidential material... at least, she wouldn't be in a world where the phrase "Presidential material" means anything at all, which based upon the last election is not the universe we live in.
God I hate this timeline.
Don't trust anyone, including the person you're married to because you trust them?
Kinda awkward.
I agree it's what everyone should do, it's just not good advice, because there's literally no set of circumstances in which it'd be followed. If you don't trust your partner, you're probably not going to let them film you already.
Works for me, and I clicked on the (i)(shield)(lock) menu and it reported "Trackers: blocking, Cookies: Blocking tracking cookies", so am I looking in the wrong place or has the website been fixed since you last went there?
There were plenty of smartphones in existence when Apple produced the iPhone. And plenty when it produced the unrelated iPod too. Nokia, Ericsson, Palm, Blackberry and others had smartphones out during the late 1990s.
Apple didn't even produce the first iPhone-like iPhone, that would be the LG Prada. There's ample evidence the iPhone was a direct rip off with Apple changing mid stream to clone the Prada when they saw it in action (early versions of iOS had a completely different UI philosophy.)
You've never used an iPod have you? There is pretty much nothing in common between the iPods (that were on sale before the iPhone that is, obviously the iPod Touch is a phoneless iPhone but that postdates the iPhone) and the iPhone. It absolutely wasn't the iPhone's predecessor, in function, technology, or anything else.
That doesn't seem like a comparable situation. Amazon is allowing competitors to sell products via its platform to a group of people who have no dependence upon Amazon. Additionally I'm guessing Amazon has no rules in place forcing products bought from them to only accept add-ons that are also bought from Amazon - that is, if you buy a PC from Amazon, you're not bound to buy PC software and graphics cards from Amazon.
The Apple situation is somewhat different. You're not paying Apple to promote something to a customer base that buys a lot of stuff from Apple. You're paying Apple for fundamental access to the people who buy Apple's phones. They've taken technical measures to prevent anyone from selling directly, and Apple not only controls that, but also requires any follow up content - like books and movies for apps that show them - also have Apple taking a cut.
Someone who wants to sell me a graphics card can choose to sell via Amazon or not. When I do a search on Amazon they won't show up if they don't list there, but if I'm buying something that expensive I'm going to also search a bunch of other websites too.
Someone who wants to sell me an iPhone app cannot choose to not list via Apple. I can't buy their software unless I buy it from Apple.
Based upon that, you can't compare the pricing. Is Amazon's apparently high? Yes. Does it mean Apple's prices are reasonable? Nope. Amazon's lack of anything resembling a monopoly here means that Amazon must be selling something of value. Apple, on the other hand, is taking advantage of its control of the platform.