Men, by and large, fantasize about younger women. Women prefer men their age and over. It's naturally if Hollywood is going to try and appeal to people they will pick stars the public will croon over.
There is a good reason why Hollywood often shows mature men partnered with pretty 20-somethings. If you look at the most famous actors and actresses themselves, you see a lot of older men really married to younger women, and vice-versa. They're at the top of the desirability factor for many partners and so get what they want in a partner. That is: Older men and younger women.
You've probably only looked up famous actors on Wikipedia. If I recall, this all kicked off because an Asian American bit-part actress, who looked younger than she really was, felt that having her age on IMDB prevented her from playing teenagers and college students because she'd be overlooked when Hollywood found out she was in her early 30s.
She was a no-name, so much so, that even after getting California to pass this bill, I doubt many people could still recall her name. Yeah, Wikipedia has the ages for superstars. It generally doesn't have information on "cop #2", or "angry man in café".
That may not be entirely true, if those responsible for casting want to find someone they might immediately reject people of a certain age for certain parts without looking to see what age "they appear to be".
I agree with you, and agree it is potential film directors who are discriminating based on age, if they do so after reading IMDB, not IMDB. For example, Walmart is not to blame if someone buys a knife/rifle from there and then kills their neighbor.
However, to play devil's advocate, I think what California is trying to suggest is that IMDB is facilitating the discrimination, and is therefore complicit in it. I don't agree with that stance, but I don't think it is an open and shut case, California might find a judge that agrees with them. (that would open a can of worms if they did as other people might try similar lawsuits).
If Electric cars ever become serious sports cars they're probably going to bring back grills, and find a way to maximize airflow over the batteries to try and cool them.
I have a feeling 0-60mph will be like the new "how thin is your smartphone". Something that once it hits a certain point consumers aren't going to care any more. I'd rather have a better battery in my car/phone than I would have a thinner phone/ faster acceleration.
Yet, I know, just like Apple is going to keep shaving fractions of a mm off their phones rather than provide any meaningful improvement, electric car companies are probably going to keep targeting improving their 0-60 time.
Does anyone really need to get up to 60mph in under 4 seconds? Yeah, it's cool, but in real life I'm not going to be accelerating that quickly very often as it isn't all that safe, and not comfortable for people in the car either.
They are trying to leverage the Tesla approach to building a company: build a high-priced performance sports car first (Roadster), and then really usable cars after that. It worked for Tesla. (so far, but it looks like it will get them to the Model 3).
I doubt it will work for FF.
It's not like it was 9 years ago. There are lots of production EVs on the road, and more coming out all the time. A new superfast non-production 0-60 car.... who cars?
I agree.
I don't have the megabucks for a Tesla Roadster. If I did, I'd buy a Tesla not a Faraday Future. I trust Tesla will still be around in 5 years, FF not so much. Tesla has proven themselves capable of building a quality car, FF has not.
If I'm going to invest the money on a super expensive electric car, I'm getting a car from a company I trust. Faraday future I don't trust. Not yet. When Tesla came out there was not tried premium electric car brand so people were willing to take a risk on them. Now Tesla exists, FF will have a harder time getting early adopters willing to spend a large amount on an untried product.
My goal as a man is to live a long time. That's because men die on average younger than women. By the time I hit 100 I'll have an endless stream of women all to myself.
On multiple occasions I've had people come up to me, remembering who I was, and I've had no idea who they were.
I had one girl walk up to me and start talking to me excitedly once, as if I were an old friend. I had worked with her about 4 years before. After she jogged my memory for a bit about who she was, I recalled that, yes- I did remember that I worked with her at a previous job (one I had for 3 years) and not only did I work with her at the same path- our paths at work would cross a couple times a week, I even wrote an application just for her (which means I must have done quite a bit of interacting with her). Once I learnt about the application I had written for her that did make me remember that we were social with each other back then.
Somehow over the 4 years since then, (despite me talking fairly frequently with her in the past) I had forgotten both her name and her face. I'm not old, either, still in my 30's. I just forget names and faces if they're drop out of my life.
I felt pretty bad. She was excited to see me and catch up with me, and it took 5 minutes of her explaining who she was before I could pin point her. I think I've already forgot her name and face again.
So long story short... absolutely, it would be great if I had glasses with that feature on them.
Other causes are now increasing their %share in the gotcha game. (which is probably a good thing since cancer seems a pretty horrible way to die- I'd rather be got by a sudden heart-attack in my sleep).
Might happen one day; humanity builds birthing pods. When the central AI decides humanity needs to increase population it drops some DNA into a birthing pod and when it is matured, out pops Anonymous Coward.
There is a 0.000023% chance that Anonymous Coward is a time traveling being who was born in a birthing pod.
I suspect you're not going to see 27" on a laptop any time soon.. If I were using a laptop for work purposes, I'd rather 3 17" panels over any laptop screen I've seen to date.
But to answer your question, 27" or 3x17"; depends on what I was using it for. If it was for work, absolutely prefer the three screens. If I was using this at home, mainly for gaming, or surfing the web... one large screen would be preferred.
I use two 24" monitors and one 21"(I think) monitor in my current setup for work, so the laptop would be inferior to my current set up... but it's a laptop, it's designed to be somewhat portable. This is a laptop I might actually use for work if they got me one. I avoid using my current work laptop wherever possible.
Meh. I tried multiple screens. It sucks having to always turn your head back and forth all day long. I prefer one giant screen to multiple tiny ones. Dell U3014 FTW.
It probably depends entirely on what type of work you're doing. If you're mostly doing single document at a time work, or don't have to flip between applications non-stop, one large monitor is probably superior to three medium monitors.
If you are constantly flipping between applications- stepping through code and seeing what happens on the application, for example, one monitor is a pain in the neck.
I actually use three screens on my desktop. And yes, I do use all three windows. One window has my code, the second the output, the third has e-mail or diagnostic crap up. Useful to see all three at once.
I hate working from a laptop because of the single screen.
I suspect Razer don't have the business user in mind though.
A faster processor, sure, who wouldn't want one? Would most people notice the difference? Probably not, day to day it would be a micro second saved here and a microsecond saved there.
Would I pay way over the odds to save microseconds here and there?
No. But it's still nice to have a faster CPU for the 1% of the time it actually would save noticeable time. I assume gamers would want one, although the GPU is probably the most common bottleneck for games.
When I first saw the article I immediately thought "EA" and was ready to come on here and say: "there is sure as hell no way I'd buy any PC related to EA after all their spyware, and DRM debacle that disabled people's devices".
Rather an unfortunate name. I wonder how many people won't even look at Origin's products because they think it's related to EA.
Slashdot Mirror
Men, by and large, fantasize about younger women. Women prefer men their age and over. It's naturally if Hollywood is going to try and appeal to people they will pick stars the public will croon over.
There is a good reason why Hollywood often shows mature men partnered with pretty 20-somethings. If you look at the most famous actors and actresses themselves, you see a lot of older men really married to younger women, and vice-versa. They're at the top of the desirability factor for many partners and so get what they want in a partner. That is: Older men and younger women.
What about posting natural hair color?
or actual weight?
or bust size?
How about promoting a culture that doesn't care about age and instead one that cares about ability?
Keep up that line of questioning and x hamster is going to be taken down next.
You've probably only looked up famous actors on Wikipedia. If I recall, this all kicked off because an Asian American bit-part actress, who looked younger than she really was, felt that having her age on IMDB prevented her from playing teenagers and college students because she'd be overlooked when Hollywood found out she was in her early 30s.
She was a no-name, so much so, that even after getting California to pass this bill, I doubt many people could still recall her name. Yeah, Wikipedia has the ages for superstars. It generally doesn't have information on "cop #2", or "angry man in café".
That may not be entirely true, if those responsible for casting want to find someone they might immediately reject people of a certain age for certain parts without looking to see what age "they appear to be".
I agree with you, and agree it is potential film directors who are discriminating based on age, if they do so after reading IMDB, not IMDB. For example, Walmart is not to blame if someone buys a knife/rifle from there and then kills their neighbor.
However, to play devil's advocate, I think what California is trying to suggest is that IMDB is facilitating the discrimination, and is therefore complicit in it. I don't agree with that stance, but I don't think it is an open and shut case, California might find a judge that agrees with them. (that would open a can of worms if they did as other people might try similar lawsuits).
They're using those on Ford's new Electric Pinto.
If Electric cars ever become serious sports cars they're probably going to bring back grills, and find a way to maximize airflow over the batteries to try and cool them.
I have a feeling 0-60mph will be like the new "how thin is your smartphone". Something that once it hits a certain point consumers aren't going to care any more. I'd rather have a better battery in my car/phone than I would have a thinner phone/ faster acceleration.
Yet, I know, just like Apple is going to keep shaving fractions of a mm off their phones rather than provide any meaningful improvement, electric car companies are probably going to keep targeting improving their 0-60 time.
Does anyone really need to get up to 60mph in under 4 seconds? Yeah, it's cool, but in real life I'm not going to be accelerating that quickly very often as it isn't all that safe, and not comfortable for people in the car either.
They are trying to leverage the Tesla approach to building a company: build a high-priced performance sports car first (Roadster), and then really usable cars after that. It worked for Tesla. (so far, but it looks like it will get them to the Model 3).
I doubt it will work for FF.
It's not like it was 9 years ago. There are lots of production EVs on the road, and more coming out all the time. A new superfast non-production 0-60 car.... who cars?
I agree.
I don't have the megabucks for a Tesla Roadster. If I did, I'd buy a Tesla not a Faraday Future. I trust Tesla will still be around in 5 years, FF not so much. Tesla has proven themselves capable of building a quality car, FF has not.
If I'm going to invest the money on a super expensive electric car, I'm getting a car from a company I trust. Faraday future I don't trust. Not yet. When Tesla came out there was not tried premium electric car brand so people were willing to take a risk on them. Now Tesla exists, FF will have a harder time getting early adopters willing to spend a large amount on an untried product.
My goal as a man is to live a long time. That's because men die on average younger than women. By the time I hit 100 I'll have an endless stream of women all to myself.
On multiple occasions I've had people come up to me, remembering who I was, and I've had no idea who they were.
I had one girl walk up to me and start talking to me excitedly once, as if I were an old friend. I had worked with her about 4 years before. After she jogged my memory for a bit about who she was, I recalled that, yes- I did remember that I worked with her at a previous job (one I had for 3 years) and not only did I work with her at the same path- our paths at work would cross a couple times a week, I even wrote an application just for her (which means I must have done quite a bit of interacting with her). Once I learnt about the application I had written for her that did make me remember that we were social with each other back then.
Somehow over the 4 years since then, (despite me talking fairly frequently with her in the past) I had forgotten both her name and her face. I'm not old, either, still in my 30's. I just forget names and faces if they're drop out of my life.
I felt pretty bad. She was excited to see me and catch up with me, and it took 5 minutes of her explaining who she was before I could pin point her. I think I've already forgot her name and face again.
So long story short... absolutely, it would be great if I had glasses with that feature on them.
You must be more into missionary than doggy then.
You die of something else.
Other causes are now increasing their %share in the gotcha game. (which is probably a good thing since cancer seems a pretty horrible way to die- I'd rather be got by a sudden heart-attack in my sleep).
I could show you, but they don't let you post pictures of people pulling things out their arse on Slashdot.
+1 Very interesting... I had no clue. Wish I had mod points for you.
Might happen one day; humanity builds birthing pods. When the central AI decides humanity needs to increase population it drops some DNA into a birthing pod and when it is matured, out pops Anonymous Coward.
There is a 0.000023% chance that Anonymous Coward is a time traveling being who was born in a birthing pod.
I suspect you're not going to see 27" on a laptop any time soon.. If I were using a laptop for work purposes, I'd rather 3 17" panels over any laptop screen I've seen to date.
But to answer your question, 27" or 3x17"; depends on what I was using it for. If it was for work, absolutely prefer the three screens. If I was using this at home, mainly for gaming, or surfing the web... one large screen would be preferred.
I use two 24" monitors and one 21"(I think) monitor in my current setup for work, so the laptop would be inferior to my current set up... but it's a laptop, it's designed to be somewhat portable. This is a laptop I might actually use for work if they got me one. I avoid using my current work laptop wherever possible.
All those Chinese coal mining jobs will now come to the US.
That's good news, the Mexican immigrants will heartily welcome the new manual labor jobs coming to the US. This should lower their unemployment.
Meh. I tried multiple screens. It sucks having to always turn your head back and forth all day long.
I prefer one giant screen to multiple tiny ones.
Dell U3014 FTW.
It probably depends entirely on what type of work you're doing. If you're mostly doing single document at a time work, or don't have to flip between applications non-stop, one large monitor is probably superior to three medium monitors.
If you are constantly flipping between applications- stepping through code and seeing what happens on the application, for example, one monitor is a pain in the neck.
I actually use three screens on my desktop. And yes, I do use all three windows. One window has my code, the second the output, the third has e-mail or diagnostic crap up. Useful to see all three at once.
I hate working from a laptop because of the single screen.
I suspect Razer don't have the business user in mind though.
Oh that's good, it will need charging at the same frequency as my cell phone.
5Ghz? Windows 10 might actually be able to run on it with out feeling sluggish.
A faster processor, sure, who wouldn't want one? Would most people notice the difference? Probably not, day to day it would be a micro second saved here and a microsecond saved there.
Would I pay way over the odds to save microseconds here and there?
No. But it's still nice to have a faster CPU for the 1% of the time it actually would save noticeable time. I assume gamers would want one, although the GPU is probably the most common bottleneck for games.
When I first saw the article I immediately thought "EA" and was ready to come on here and say: "there is sure as hell no way I'd buy any PC related to EA after all their spyware, and DRM debacle that disabled people's devices".
Rather an unfortunate name. I wonder how many people won't even look at Origin's products because they think it's related to EA.
Sorry forgot the obligatory:
Thanks Obama!