on most mac systems it will offer you a suggested screen based on your current resolution. If you're viewing it on your laptop screen you can just choose 'macbook pro 17' and you're good to go. If you move your browser over to your external screen it will typically detect that you're now on a different screen (unless that screen is exactly the same resolution), and it should tell you that. You can then do the manual calibration thingy there. At that point (and this is a feature I'm particularly proud of though it may not be used that often), you could drag the LifeSizer window from one screen to the other and it will instantly resize the item to show in lifesize whereever you move the window.
Let me know if that works for you!
This article is bizarre. Why is written in such a strange way? "your favorite Redmond techno-giant is sitting on a horse" What the fuck does that mean?
Huh? She never mentioned anyone's name in this post. And as far as I can tell, there were no consequences for him in this story. What would his name have to do with anything?
1 in 11 chance of being a millionaire? That must be far too high? Then there would be 31 million millionaires in the country, or about the population of California.
Edit: and then he says 1 in 120 of earning $400k or more... so that does that work with 1 in 11 being a millionaire?
According to the WSJ[1], there were 3.1 millionaires in the US in 2010. I'm not sure what he means by "in a random year", but perhaps it means that 1/11 people become a millionaire at some point in their life (even if they don't stay one for long)? Or, he's off by a factor of ten (the coincidence of 3.1MM vs 31MM is hard to discount).
Becoming a millionaire doesn't require an annual income of $400k/yr. Most millionaires probably make far less, (150-250k?), and become millionaires from savings over many years.
"Merrill and Capgemini define millionaires as individuals with $1 million or more in investible assets, not including primary home, collectibles, consumables and consumer durables."
So not including your home, or things you can sell like your car, or collectible ginsu knife set. I guess they do include your self managed IRA though, since that is 'investible.'
Defining 'millionaire' is always dicey depending on who you talk to. In order of strictness:
$1M or more in adjusted gross income on tax return
$1M or more in gross income (before adjustments)
$1M or more in 'liquid' net worth (cash or cash equivalents)
$1M or more in total net worth.
I know a number of folks who would call themselves a 'millionaire before taxes' which is to say their stock options would give them more than a million dollars when exercised, but since in California you end up withholding 51% for taxes you probably end up with less than a million. There are also folks who bought a house earlier and it has appreciated to be 'worth' more than a million but if they sold it and bought another one they wouldn't want to pay the property taxes on a million dollar house.
And of course a million doesn't go as far as it used to. If you have a couple of kids in elementary school and are planning to pay for their college education, well that's going to be nearly 1/2 million right there depending on school.
Note that there is no dichotomy between more people are millionaires than ones that earn over $400k per year. You can earn $100K per year and invest $20K per year and end up with $1M in savings in 20 years. But it is a long road.
Thinking more deeply about this, I’ve adjusted the number to 1 in 15, since almost all kids (~25% of the population) are part of someone else’s household, and so would be counted as “millionaires” even though they had no control over the assets.
Pretty much. This isn't a court of law or a public gathering. This is a privately organized event. It's totally okay to exclude disruptive people, and to act on stuff you're reasonably sure is true.
Imagine there was some emacs guy who routinely went around harassing people who used vim. To the point where he got so offensive that the vim people felt they weren't being respected as professionals, even humiliated and demeaned. Some were hounded by him at offsite gatherings. The conference organizers had multiple reports of this occurring. Do the vim people need to "prove" something before it's appropriate for conference organizers to take action? Should their claims be more suspect than anyone else's?
I suggest that you re-examine why the 'unproven claims' thing is so important to you. If you start with the assumption that women and men, just like emacs and vim users, have equal interests in having a good technical conference, and are equally competent to determine when someone's being disruptive, why wouldn't you trust their reports?
Let's look at the flip side. Someone who does go around making life miserable for others by falsely accusing them of things. In a case where nobody knows both parties well, what are you supposed to do? I'm not saying what happened was OK. I'm saying the flip side is something we need to beware of also.
I think the OP is arguing that there should be a procedure in place, so you're not improvising, or making arbitrary rules that aren't fairly applied.
If nobody saw it happen and nobody knows either party well, I would say, record it and move on. If you have multiple reports, have a planned way to escalate, involving friendly warnings, going all the way up to removing the person and/or banning them.
Where it gets really bad - and I think everyone has seen this situation before - is when the guy is some sort of alpha geek, and may even be the kind of person that draws attendees. Everyone is inclined to bend the rules. I think that's why a standard procedure would be important.
That doesn't seem to be the case here, though. The organizer's sigh and admission that "he never should have allowed this guy to come to the conference" sounds like he had prior warning that this could happen.
I can't reply to Avenger42 as this thread has got too deep, but in response to him or her, you are supporting one unproven claim, by citing her, citing him, making another unproven claim. He could be lying. She could be lying. And if I didn't have access to the same blog post and you were telling me about it, you could by lying.
Moreover, she could be _mistaken_. Perhaps about the guy's name. He could also be _mistaken_, thinking she's talking about another guy, or getting names and faces mixed up.
Well, just imagine there was some emacs guy who routinely went around harassing people who used vim. He was offensive and yet they gave back words and didn't leave as he wanted. So he reported them on the next best thing that would get them baned.
One can take a stand against the kind of bad behavior without being prejudicial toward the accused.
E.g., the organizer could go to the culprit and say, "As you know, Joe, we take sexual harassment very seriously here. Could you tell me what happened last night at the bar?"
I could imagine a lot of ways it goes from there, but all of them seem compatible with taking a strong stand against jackassery without giving up a strong stand for fairness.
Careful that she is making an accusation here, but it is not proven, and prior bad behaviour (that's also an unproven accusation) is not an indicator of present guilt.
I don't think we should ban people from conferences based on unproven accusations.
This isn't the stock market. Past behavior is an indicator of present/future behavior. It's not the only indicator, certainly, but when a large number of people are telling you the same thing, then you have a responsibility to discover why that is.
The organizer's reaction made it sound like he had reservations about inviting this person, due to older reports similar to the author's.
I'm willing to bet you had bowel control problems until a certain age, and I wonder if I can use that as an indicator of future behavior. There are reliable witnesses, after all.
If a conference wants to have a policy governing the actions of their attendees whilst at the conference, wonderful. If a conference thinks they have any right to govern the actions of people who happen to be attendees whilst not at the conference, then they can go pound sand.
It's sad that this woman was apparently treated so poorly, but there's no possible way for a conference to write a legally-binding code of conduct for how people spend their social lives outside of that conference. It's utter nonsense to even consider it.
The policy governs how the conference will react to situations like this - that's what it's there for, so there are procedures in place when something happens. By thinking it out ahead of time, it helps to avoid mistakes made in the heat of the moment.
The policy does not need to be legally binding, just very clear of the consequences, and they can make clear what will happen if they get a complaint about you.
Can I please get your full name and the list of conferences you plan to attend to further your career ?
Don't worry, in no way am I going to abuse this information to make baseless complaints against you. All my complaints will be solidly based on malice.
I'll repeat myself to ease your fear of the rabid hordes of malignant women who want to make your life miserable: "they can make clear what will happen if they get a complaint about you."
Of course what will happen from a complaint should take malignancy in consideration and offer at least some kind of right to respond to offenders.
>I'll repeat myself to ease your fear of the rabid hordes of malignant women who want to make your life miserable: "they can make clear what will happen if they get a complaint about you."
Can be paraphrased to apply to "rabid hordes of adulterous men who want to make your life miserable". Better ?
I'm just pointing out that for people discussing how to best setup procedures for handling deviant behaviour, you sure assume only perfectly honest people would come to use said procedures. If you assume p% of possible culpability for the accused, shouldn't you assume the same for the accuser ? Otherwise, you are just discriminating against the accused.
This is a hard problem society as large has not solved yet - witness both the huge cost of false negatives (unreported offenses) and false positives (false accusations). I'm just skeptical a conference organiser will correctly solve this between two round of emails.
Oh sure, he can publish a boilerplate "we take all complaints very seriously" policy. I predict we'll see them appear at most tech conferences shortly.
Of course it's a hard problem. (And I've never assumed perfect honesty on either part. It seems you just read what you wanted to read to make your point.)
What I'm claiming is that policies ARE needed, the current "hmm, what should I do now?" policy is the worst policy of them all, because improvised decisions aren't usually the best ones.
Such a policy can any policy, from "yes, we believe all women, be them malignant or not, and we'll ban you on the first offense" up to "I don't care what you people do outside of the venue, you should call the cops (here's the number) if you have a problem." It's important to know where the organizer stands to take your pick. There might even be a niche for "female-friendly conferences" that will by definition have harsher policies on the issue.
The conference gets to invite whoever they want. It's a private event, and they can set any conditions they choose for attendance. They can indeed write that policy and enforce it by revoking access. As far as I know the only US limits are when you're excluding a group legally protected from discrimination.
Trial by jury is a mechanism we use to limit the actions of the state, to make sure its power over individuals is fairly applied.
In the US, people are generally free to associate with whomever they want. That includes the right to not associate with people. If a bar owner or a conference organizer wants to throw somebody out, that's perfectly within their rights unless they've contracted otherwise. Equally, patrons are welcome to their business elsewhere if they choose.
It uses dnode which uses socket.io which uses WebSockets whenever possible and falls back on flash or xhr polling. Joint is pretty new and I provide no guarantees but I've found those libraries to be pretty dependable when it comes to telling me when someone disconnects and keeping the connection open (socket.io checks for a heartbeat).
Yes this credit card is the right size of this monitor, now I'll just drag it over onto this monitor to get a better look...