MSFT has been up nearly 30% in the last couple of months. Since stock goes down after any big reveal (see iPhone5 and Google IO), that's actually a good thing.
Apple stock has been a fluke. They generate so much income that they have insanity type cash reserves. Any company would kill for their sales and would love to have that type of cash on hand.
The main point was more about how somebody who doesn't watch TV will always let you know that they don't. Not really the reasons why. I think in that case, the satire is still relevant. Plenty of people on reddit/HN/the Internet almost bragging about how they don't use a traditional TV setup.
Basically like the old joke "How can you tell if someone is an atheist? Don't worry, he'll tell you."
Maybe you hear that so often because it's a trend, so the idea of it being the focus of your media center box for the next decade might be a little antiquated.
Or it's a vocal minority of people who don't miss opportunities to talk about it. I don't care either way, especially since the article was posted as a little joke.
"8 gigs of RAM, USB 3.0, Wi-Fi Direct, a Blu-Ray disc drive, 64-bit architecture and "practically silent operation." Super fast switching of TV inputs between TV, Gaming, Skype,IE etc. Runs the Windows NT kernel.
Kinect 2.0 also gets a substantial upgrade. Whitten promised the integrated camera will have a wider field of view, and the sensor will be able to detect more joints, to include rotation of wrists and shoulders. "When you are exercising it can read your heartrate."
"read your heartrate" reminded me of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONZcjs1Pjmk (video to MIT paper submitted to SIGGRAPH about emphasizing video features, blood flow among them)
Did they say anything about its power consumption? Because in addition to reduced noise, this would need to have a low-power mode in order to be a successful "always on" device.
No wattage or anything yet, but power usage is a concern. Engadget just posted an article about the hardware, which includes this quote:
The console runs in multiple power states, which means it runs in a low-wattage setting when not in use. (Microsoft wouldn't give us specifics other than to say, "The system is designed for an SoC up to about 100W, but will vary on the scenario.")
"Guys, this is not a dick-sucking contest. If you want to parse PE binaries, go right ahead.
If Red Hat wants to deep-throat Microsoft, that's your issue..."
What if that email was to a female kernel dev? What if a whizkid reads the kernel dev mailing list and goes asks their parents what deepthroating means?
So it is okay to swear at men but not at women? Why in this context?
Really, this is ridiculous. Why would something become acceptable/inacceptable simply because of the gender/religion/haircolour/height/taste in music of the recipient?
It's not OK for anyone (in my opinion). However, because it's a sexualized email sent from a man it would have a not insignificant chance of being interpreted as sexual harassment (i.e., meeting the legal definition for creating a hostile work environment) towards a woman.
> So I can send such an email to a woman as I am gay?
No, probably not. I painted in broad strokes, but the situation is more murky. I don't know of any situations where legal action for this kind of behavior has come from men doing it to men.
> But if I sent it back to Linus, it’s sexual harassment?
Possibly. That may depend on the state? I'm not terribly familiar with same-sex sexual harassment issues, I'm afraid. Need to re-read up on it, I guess.
If one employee repeatedly causes offense or discomfort to another, especially on the basis of protected categories like race, religion, or sexual preference, and the management is aware of the offense but doesn't do anything about it, the company is opening itself to a lawsuit.
If management became aware of the remarks above, and they were within a workplace context (the above ones were out of the workplace), management would have to do something. They are making crude sexual references and could reasonably be regarded as offensive.
It does not matter if you think it is ridiculous, although it would be smart to reflect that the reason we have these laws is because, historically, there has been real and pervasive harassment.
> Why would something become acceptable/inacceptable simply because of the gender/religion/haircolour/height/taste in music of the recipient?
There are some things that might (for instance, a reference that had a widely accepted meaning in general usage but also a specific use in the context of a particular group might be less appropriate to use to a member of that group where the context might be ambiguous enough to support both the group-specific and the more general use, while being perfectly fine otherwise), but I don't really see that being the case for the particular email in question.
I understand what you're saying but you are making the classic "protect the kiddies" argument and I'm not sure I can accept your position. I'd rather not live in such a world. Linus' mailing list is different from an email at work.
"anywhere else you would get summarily fired" Speak for yourself. I've never worked anywhere where someone got fired for speaking English.
"What if that email was to a female kernel dev?" What if it was man? A martian? A lickle putty tat? I'm really not sure what you're trying to say here saying here.
"What if a whizkid reads ... deepthroating means?" Whizkid? Doesn't know what deepthroating means? Were you home-schooled?
Anyway, take a look at this. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-21/sony-jumps-on-repor...