Hasta La Gadget!

If you are a working professional who wants nothing but the very best in terms of hardware, knowing that anything less will simply not do, then the AOC U3277PWQU display would surely rank somewhere right up there in your list. After all, having the right processor as well as peripherals such as keyboard and mouse is one thing — what about your poor eyes that stares into the monitor for hours on end each day? The AOC U3277PWQU display is here to help, being an ultra-sharp resolution monitor that has four times higher resolution than Full HD in order to deliver highly detailed images for designers, gamers, and photographers alike.

Courtesy of its high pixel density, users are able to look forward to more workspace on their desktop, and this would normally translate to a greater degree of productivity. The excellent image quality is complemented by comprehensive ergonomic features and AOC Flicker-Free technology, making this stylish monitor perfect for all users who are on the lookout for precise and detailed images, not to mention a comfortable monitor setup for better health and wellbeing.

The AOC 32-inch 4K UHD Display will come with an asking price of $699 a pop, although for the moment, it is available on Amazon and B&H Photo Video at a special price point of just $499, which is surely a significant amount of savings no matter which way you look at it. Apart from the 4K UHD resolution (3840 x 2160 pixels) that it comes with, there is also a VA panel for high responsiveness and a wide color gamut. Not only that, your eyes will benefit from a 60 Hz refresh rate and a short response time, which would make this the ideal platform for gaming enthusiasts who want nothing else but crisp 4K visuals.

Press Release
[ AOC reveals the U3277PWQU display copyright by Coolest Gadgets ]

When Apple launched their 2016 MacBook Pros, only the lowest-end configuration of the laptops, which was a 13-inch model, came without the Touch Bar. This seemed to suggest that the Touch Bar would be more or less a staple for MacBook Pros in the future, but that may no longer be the case.

In a report from OS News (via AppleInsider), they have heard that the next update to the MacBook Pros could see the higher-end 15-inch laptop launched without the Touch Bar. This doesn’t mean that Apple will be killing the Touch Bar, but rather Apple will be giving 15-inch MacBook Pro customers the option of whether or not they want the feature.

Apparently this is due to poor professional response to the laptops, and based on that feedback Apple reportedly plans to give their customers that option. Presumably the model without the Touch Bar will be cheaper, so for those who aren’t willing to shell out so much money could potentially save themselves a couple of hundred. This is also in line with the rumors that 2017’s MacBook Pro refresh could see prices reduced.

As it stands the cheapest 13-inch MacBook Pro without a Touch Bar is priced at $1,500, with the version with the Touch Bar priced at $1,800, although there are differences in specs that would also justify the difference in price. Take it with a grain of salt for now, but how do you guys feel about a 15-inch MacBook Pro model that won’t come with a Touch Bar? Yay or nay?

High-End 15-inch MacBook Pro Without Touch Bar Rumored , original content from Ubergizmo. Read our Copyrights and terms of use.

Last month according to the latest Android distribution figures, it was revealed that Android 7.0 Nougat was sitting at around 2.8% of all Android devices. However fast forward to April, it seems that those numbers have improved rather drastically because according to the Android Developer website, Nougat is now sitting at 4.9%.

To be more specific, Android 7.0 itself is at 4.5% while Android 7.1 is at 0.4%. This is compared to the previous month where Android 7.0 was at 2.4%, although interestingly enough Android 7.1 remained the same at 0.4%. So far based on the latest figures, Nougat is the only update that has seen an increase in distribution figures.

Older builds of Android such as Android 6.0 Marshmallow dropped from 31.3% to 31.2% which we guess is almost negligible. This appears to be the same as other older Android builds like Android 5.x Lollipop which dropped by 0.5%, while KitKat dropped by 0.8%, and Jelly Bean by around 0.5%.

We can only assume that OEMs and carriers pushing out the Nougat update in recent times had something to do with this increase, along with the release of new Nougat-based handsets, but either way it’s a good thing, although admittedly the latest build of Android is still a very far cry from Apple’s iOS distribution numbers.

Latest Android Distribution Figures Shows Nougat At Nearly 5% , original content from Ubergizmo. Read our Copyrights and terms of use.

WASHINGTON ― The White House announced Thursday it will delay the rollout of a major workplace safety regulation issued by the Obama administration, stirring fears among safety advocates that it could be watered down or even scrapped by President Donald Trump.

Before leaving office, President Barack Obama finalized what’s known as the silica rule ― a long-awaited regulation that limits the amount of cancer-causing dust that companies can expose construction workers to. Workplace safety experts and unions spent decades pressing regulators for the changes, squaring off with the homebuilding, industrial sand and chemical lobbies. The Obama administration announced the reforms to much fanfare last year.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration projected the new standards would save more than 600 lives per year. But now they appear to be caught in the Trump administration’s regulatory freeze and rollback. In a statement Thursday, OSHA said it would hold off on enforcing the new rules in the construction industry for at least three more months, since “additional guidance is necessary due to the unique nature of the requirements.”

The delay pushes back enforcement of the rule from late June to late September. But close watchers of the regulation took the move as another indication that the Trump administration may not be committed to it. The new White House has been peeling back one federal rule after another, and Trump has ordered a review of all agency regulations currently on the books, suggesting further repeals were in the offing.

“We remain very concerned that there will be efforts to further delay or weaken the rule,” Peg Seminario, director of health and safety at the AFL-CIO labor federation, said in an email. Seminario noted that industry groups are fighting the silica regulation in court, and the Labor Department under Trump may not defend it the way the agency did under Obama.

A Labor Department spokeswoman said it would not comment beyond the press release.

Occupational health experts described the silica standard as the most significant workplace safety reform of the Obama era. According to the Labor Department, about 2.2 million U.S. workers are exposed each year to silica dust, which is commonly found in construction materials like sand and granite. Workers who breathe high levels can suffer from the respiratory disease silicosis, giving them chronic lung problems and potentially lung cancer.

“We’re kind of flabbergasted ― this rule has been debated and researched for about 40 years. Further delaying this is really unconscionable,” said Emily Gardner, the worker safety advocate at left-leaning Public Citizen. “We’re seeing challenges to every single worker safety standard that’s come out of the Obama administration.”

The other day, Trump signed legislation sent to him by the Republican Congress loosening the injury reporting requirements for employers. The change effectively shortens the amount of time that employers in dangerous industries can be required to keep accurate records of worker injuries, from five years to six months. Former OSHA officials say it will make it harder for the government to track ongoing workplace hazards.

Trump also signed legislation rolling back a regulation that would have made it harder for companies to secure federal contracts if they have a history of serious OSHA violations. Under that regulation, firms seeking federal dollars would have had to disclose their labor law violations from the preceding three years.

Trump’s own nominee for labor secretary, Alexander Acosta, signaled during his confirmation hearing that the silica rule might be in jeopardy, too. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) grilled Acosta on the issue of worker safety, pressing him to commit to enforcing the new silica standards. Acosta refused to do so.

“Will you promise not to weaken the silica rule?” Warren asked.

“I cannot make a commitment because the Labor Department has an order to review all rules,” Acosta responded.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Now that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has gone “nuclear” on the voting for Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, all but guaranteeing his confirmation Friday by altering longstanding Senate rules, all future appointments to the nation’s highest court will require just a simple majority.

That means if there’s a new vacancy in what remains of President Donald Trump’s term — perhaps if Justice Anthony Kennedy retires, which the White House seems to be longing for — Senate Republicans can have a far easier time getting the next justice confirmed.

The Supreme Court may never be the same.

“It’s one of my saddest days in the United States Senate,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) on the party-line vote Thursday. “And sadder than anything it’s the damage that’s been done to two pillars of our democracy: the Senate and the Supreme Court.” 

After Gorsuch takes his seat on the high court, all eyes will be on what Trump does with future vacancies. No Supreme Court member has given any indication of stepping down any time soon. But the prospect of Kennedy or one of the older liberal justices dying or leaving the court is a real possibility.

As things stand now, the minority party has lost all leverage in the process — the fallout of prompting the “nuclear option” showdown by starting a filibuster against Gorsuch’s nomination.

“My hope is that there’ll be a return to the tradition of consulting both sides of the aisle and reaching a mainstream candidate ― acceptable in a bipartisan way,” Blumenthal said 

Arguably, Democratic senators do retain some say as to the names Trump might put forth for lower court vacancies. There are still 48 Democratic or Democratic-leaning senators in the upper chamber, and traditionally the Senate Judiciary Committee extends certain courtesies to home-state senators whenever there are open seats in their states.

Nan Aron, of the liberal Alliance for Justice, which opposed the Gorsuch nomination, said that that’s where Democrats should focus their fire ― the more than 100 vacancies in the lower federal courts.

“President Trump has made clear that he’s going to fill them with young, conservative ideologues and jettison the role of the American Bar Association,” she said. “All is not lost by any means. It’s still not a happy day.”

On the Supreme Court front, the glass-half-full view is that Gorsuch would bring the balance back to how things were before Justice Antonin Scalia died — a bench with five appointees by Republican presidents and four by Democratic presidents that will divide 5-to-4 on closely ideological issues, with Kennedy serving as the pivotal center.

Even in this scenario, the good news for Democrats, liberals and progressives, at least for now, is that Kennedy is a strong voice on certain issues they care about ― like LGBT rights, which are far from settled at this point — and has cast decisive votes in recent years on affirmative action, abortion rights and fair housing.

Gorsuch’s addition to the mix likely won’t change that dynamic, even as he has shown signs that he might be even more conservative than Scalia in certain areas. On the flip side, Gorsuch would likely join the court’s conservative wing on labor, campaign finance and business-related litigation, areas in which the justices tend to split along ideological lines.

The judge’s views on immigration, too, are curiously centrist, and there are indications in his record that he may not give Trump the upper hand against undocumented immigrants all the time. One of his more popular opinions as an appeals judge — in which he raised questions about the administrative state — happened to spare an undocumented immigrant from deportation.

As for what kind of nominee might be put forth by Trump in the event of a new vacancy, there’s no telling if he’ll stick to the unconventional list of names that he rolled out during the campaign or if his advisers will start from scratch. The White House is already hard at work preparing for that next battle.

Another silver lining for both Democrats and Republicans in a world without a filibuster is that presidents of both parties will now have an incentive, if they also have a Senate majority, to nominate people outside the box. Which in turn may motivate them pick more diverse or unconventional nominees ― unlike Gorsuch or Judge Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama’s rebuffed Supreme Court nominee, both of whom were fairly elite and conventional.

The filibuster “is one reason nominees have morphed from quirky, brilliant, flawed, controversial political figures into cautious, careful, qualified and essentially perfect human beings like Garland and Gorsuch,” wrote Harvard law professor Noah Feldman in a column.

“Greatness involves risk,” Feldman added, “and the filibuster threat has helped keep judicial nominees essentially riskless. I wouldn’t have chosen the end of the filibuster, especially not the way it actually took place. But now that it’s gone, let’s dance on its grave.”

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.