Yes. I'm sure some of them are.
at the end of the day Apple makes more on their PCs than anyone else (They don't ship more, but they make more money. Think about it)
Yes, that's marvelous for Apple, but it isn't marvelous for me and so guess what? Lost sale. Just the measly one lost sale (well, two, actually, because I'm not buying that stupid trash can thing either.)
Believe it or not, I don't sit around here pining for things to go better for Apple.
I do, however, think about what might improve my circumstances. Unfortunately, Apple thinks just like you do: About them. Not about the end user.
I'm with you. I just can't see a good use for Touch Bar
... at least not yet. I don't look at my keyboard when I type, why would I want to start?
Not only that, but you'd have to start, inasmuch as there is zero tactile feedback, and you don't know what's up there until you look.
Funny thing... if they'd have gone with a touchscreen on the main laptop monitor, they wouldn't have needed to do this and it would have been a metric fuckton more capable and it would be where you're already, you know, actually looking (but then again, since there's nothing really good about this thing, and there are a lot of things that aren't, I guess they really needed something to confuse the potential buyers.)
But hey. No touchscreen for you.
How is this Touch Bar "10 years old"? I've never seen anything even close to the same thing.
I love it when Apple fanboys get their panties in a twist.
You've introduced the capacitive touch bar my wife's 10 year old HP Pavilion Media laptop has been rockin' forever!
(I really do to this day think that part of the laptop is really cool, except when I swipe to change the volume and it doesn't work the first time)
More like Mr. MUST (as in mold)
Always trying to cap someone. What does your angst stem from, you spoor fellow? Lichen or not, you're looking a little green around the gills these days.
Of course, businesses are not in control. They're subject to what happens in the world around them, just like everybody else.
Dear Employee, we regret to inform you that we hav
e eliminated your job. Please sign the provided no
n-disclosure termination papers. Thank y
[reply] [retweet] [heart] [...]
Think you mean Twitter doesn't want you as a customer unless you're willing to drink the kool-aid and engage in ideological groupthink.
Twitter is obviously failing because they have refused to make Twitter a safe space from fascist Nazis like:
2. Anybody who doesn't support Hillary (with the exception of Bernie supporters who converted by the deadline set forth in form 402-33R6).
3. White racists... oh wait, I should have just said "all white people with the exception of those we approve of".
5. Homophobes (e.g. anyone not gay).
7. Gay people aren't really gay because they don't think what we tell them to think (looking at you Milo & Thiel!)
8. Any racist sports figures that don't flip the bird or at least kneel during the National Anthem.
* MUSLIMS ARE AN EXCEPTION (assuming you are violent that is).
I think that after these impure hate-mongers have been burned off from Twitter that the safe space will flourish and all problems will be solved.
Yeah, because the Nazis were the only people ever to do that. It wouldn't have gotten worse in the meantime. Stalin didn't purge his population to a greater degree than Hitler. Mao didn't kill astronomical numbers of his people during his purges. There was no Uganda under Idi Amin. Rwanda didn't happen. There wasn't a breakup of Yugoslavia, even.
Are you fucking crazy? I think you are.
You are delusional. Seek help.
Generally warrants are obtained against suspects not potential witnesses. It's the scope of the warrant that's disturbing. They even say that one of these people could be the killer, so they're basically treating everyone as a potential suspect merely for having their phone turned on in the vicinity of the crime.
In Canadian law this is completely legal FYI. Hell if you're walking down the street and there was a murder 2 blocks over, and the only information is "the suspect is a black male and accomplice was white male" and you fall into either of those categories, the police can detain you to ensure you're not one of the people who fit the profile of the individuals they're looking for. There's a lot to cover in this but that's the bare minimum that should make sense.
There have been multiple cases of warrants being used against witnesses in case law in Canada as well, especially against uncooperative witnesses in crimes, several cases that I can remember witnesses were also found to be accomplices. What a lot of people don't understand and this is usually due to watching a lot of American TV(which is just plain bad on law, and really terrible on US laws too) is that the rights afforded to you under the Charter are weighted against S.1 which allows the suspending of rights if enacted via the courts or laws. Your average Canadian has less rights then their American neighbors do and it all comes back to S.1.
Keep in mind that in Canada up until a few years ago, Exigent Circumstances were legal on the books and so on. The whole idea behind it was to allow warrentless entry/searches/tapping of communications/etc before a warrant was authorized, or allow entry into a building, and so on. And allowed police to do actions without a warrant, then go back and get a warrant to cover their actions. The various laws that used it, had been on the books since before there was a Canada, and the courts ruled that exigent circumstances were overly broad in a modern society and struck the entire thing out of law.
Article is garbage and completely misses S.1 of the Charter, something you're also missing. S.1 states "guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." To boil it down, government or courts can make laws that override these rights, or put in place case law judgements if there is a "greater good" for the rest of society. It's one of the big things that makes a lot of charter lawyers here in Canada believe that the Charter probably won't make it to 2030.
So with that, you can not refuse to talk at a RIDE checkpoint because S.1 supersedes other rights guaranteed under the charter and the SCC has already ruled that the "RIDE Program" that although being an unlawful search, there is a reasonable exception under S.1 "for the safety of all Canadians, to reduce the number of drivers under the influence" as long as it's premise holds true. That means you have no reasonable right to refuse to answer, even though it's technically an illegal search. On top of that since it is a search, and you are driving a motor vehicle you must also show license and vehicle registration if demanded. What you can do however is answer to the bare minimum that's requested of you, nothing more. There's a whole pile more to this but I'm too damned tired to write it out.
Also, the wikipedia article on R. v. Hebert misses several key things, I recommend reading the actual case law on http://canlii.org/
"I have five dollars for each of you." -- Bernhard Goetz