5,719 karma · joined April 11, 2008
Serious question.
There's no accounting for preference when it comes to switches or keyboards. Some people quite like Cherry switches.
FWIW, first result after searching for “keyboard spacer”
"…that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination…"
If the ad itself does not mention the preference, then it does not seem to be covered by this clause.
Would it not be analogous to advertising the property to a particular racial or religious group, such as a church bulletin board?
The distribution of the ad is being targeted, but the ad itself does not indicate any preference. It seems as if the latter is the only thing that is deemed illegal by the law.
Am I reading it correctly?
Here's the entire quote:
"…if Face ID fails to recognize you, but the match quality is higher than a certain threshold and you immediately follow the failure by entering your passcode, Face ID takes another capture and augments its enrolled Face ID data with the newly calculated mathematical representation"
Bought a mattress from them two years ago. Liked it. Last month there was an odd bump that seemed to be a defect. Called them, emailed some pictures, and within a few days a new one was delivered to my home, and they took the old one to donate for me. Painless.
I have no affiliation. Just a happy customer.
http://www.cc.com/video-clips/acaxis/key-and-peele-the-heist
It's a skit by Key & Peele describing a genius plan for a bank heist. I won't ruin the punchline by going any further.
See this change: https://github.com/Homebrew/brew/pull/896
http://www.paulirish.com/2010/the-protocol-relative-url/
This page outlines the original argument, as well as the updated reasoning that you suggest: always use HTTPS if it is available, even if requesting from a page served over HTTP.
The premium service caches the content of everything you bookmark using the service, with full-text search (in addition to the usual tagging).
pageAccelerator is a very light version of turbolinks and pjax (our minify file has 2.2KB!).
It seems as though it's meant to be a lighter weight version.I don't see any grounds for your statement that they scraped the content.
In fact, both the OP and your linked article clearly cite the exact same paper that they both took your referenced content from.
It's sort of a relic from my childhood. I don't get a whole lot of negative reactions to it; most appreciate the humor.
But you're certainly entitled to be offended and I am sorry to hear about it. It was not my intent.
I realize this is just one data point, but as unpopular as your perspective is, stephenr, I share it.
It looks like there are several reports of folks being hacked via TeamViewer.