Re: Problem solved
Well he did receive a lot of bullying and harassment.
1507 posts • joined 23 Mar 2010
Well he did receive a lot of bullying and harassment.
>It was about this time that Pew Internet Research noted that 26 per cent of women between the ages of 18 and 24 have been stalked online, and 25 per cent have been the target of online sexual harassment.
This would be the same research that found most abuse is suffered by men, right? And men fared worst in 4 of the 6 categories (you picked the other 2 for special mention).
They already ban non-abusive accounts with the wrong politics, but you can call for the assassination of a (specific) political candidate and face no consequences. Women are specially protected by Twitter, with the exception of Anne Coulter and the like. Celebrities get special treatment, like when Leslie Jones targeted her followers at another user and said "get her". She didn't get banned, but the target of her abuse is no longer on the site.
To get more girls interested in physics they changed the syllabus to focus more on the social impact of physics and less on...actual physics, because girls are interested in social impacts of things apparently. Now, to get girls interested in something they're not very interested in, they inject it into everything they are interested in, which is the opposite of how they approached the "problem" in physics.
As ever, what boys want or need is completely ignored. But if boys lose interest in physics because of all that social impact nonsense it will at least make the gender imbalance less problematic.
The lack of a distinction between talking *about* someone and talking *at* them doesn't help either.
Have you seen what BLM supporters say on Twitter? Given that and the facts of police violence (it's actually not racially biased when you consider criminality rates across races), we have to accept BLM is racist.
Facebook is more than happy to work for Germany's security services, so why not Israel's? But there is consistency here - they support one and not the other and in both cases they are working for the interests of Islam.
The UN has recently cosied up to people who want to use the "condemns violations against people for expressing their views online" angle to censor people they disagree with. They define disagreement as "violence" and "harassment" in order to get opposing views banned. There is no such thing as cyberviolence.
One of the censors works for Twitter's Orwellian "trust and safety council" which is currently ok with publishing a threat of gang rape against Farage's daughter, and is happy to host a similar threat against Sarah Palin (made a few months ago), but takes down criticism of the EU's migration policy within 24 hours.
Do you notice a pattern? This is not about ending "violence" or protecting people, it's about censoring people by claiming their words are violent. Certain words are never considered violent, because they target the people Twitter hates.
They are slow to deal with death threats against republicans too.
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/06/28/death-threats-made-to-republican-senators-remain-for-weeks/ Yes, it's Breitbart. It any of the publications which campaign against "online harassment" gave a damn about harassment of men or conservatives I'd have linked the their story about it, but they don't
This is the atmosphere that makes liberals think they can beat up Trump supporters and assassinate the man himself.
If a government makes it technically illegal to take non-harmful actions in order to refuse service to someone who will not pay for that service, then the moral thing to do is get the law changed, not shake down innocent people who have fallen into its trap. This is particularly true when the law is difficult to understand or interpret.
How are you better than a patent troll? You're a regulation troll.
Have you ever paid Forbes for their content?
What do you think they might want to say to you?
Are you trying to get the law changed to make unharmful practices legal, or are you trying to shake down honest publishers who are just trying to make a living?
If the user requests an ad-free page but the publisher does not provide ad-free pages then they should be allowed to detect the user's request and refuse it.
"I have no right to force myself onto a web site which doesn't want me to use an adblocker"
This is why adblock-blockers should be legal. The EU should not give you a right you should not have.
Users consent when they visit the website. I didn't want to see your comment, but I took the risk when I came here.
If the information if not personally identifiable, is not stored, and is not used to track people then why should it be illegal?
"...no less an entity than GNU daddy Richard Stallman thinks Canonical is violating the GNU GPL because you can't blend GPL code and non-GPL code. The Software Freedom Conservancy agrees has form funding court actions that test the GPL..."
Clinton has been given $20million by the banks, Obama withdrew from Iraq and Afghanistan and handed them to ISIS and the Taliban. He and Clinton gave North Africa to the Muslim brotherhood and refuse to condemn its US branch, CAIR.
Who will clear up that residue and increase their standing?
You still don't see. Others have had private servers for private emails, she had one for government business and sensitive information. People have got 20 years for far less.
The deleted emails are a big problem for national security because the US doesn't know what China knows. All field agents have to be considered compromised.
No need for corporation tax, as you imply.
"So, in terms of efficiency, it's not that difficult to design a taxation system. Start with land taxation, add on any Pigou Taxes we want (carbon, baccy, booze, pollution etc, we want these precisely because they do destroy certain economic activity), as much VAT as we can get away with and if we still need more to feed the ravening maw of government, income taxes and on up the list."
"how multinationals are avoiding having their pockets picking by G20 nations"
BND is taxpayer funded. You think they want to help people pay less tax?
Windows XP comes with Internet Explorer 6 preinstalled so why is this even news?
Any old OS will have problems with certain newer software or API releases, and should not be exposed to the internet if it's not getting security updates. Whatever OS you're using, if the newer version has features you don't like, and the old one is not being updated, then you are out of luck. This is not just a Chrome thing, but you can install Linux on a Chromebook so Chromebook users have the same options as XP users. Using this as a criticism of Chrome OS is a fail. Ubuntu, Mac and Windows suffer exactly the same "problem".
"Google cloud services on your usb stick?"
No, it installs the OS on the laptop and you can access the internet if you want. The APIs which could fail if old APIs are dropped are the bookmarks and settings sync, and integrated Google Drive. Bookmarks and settings would still work on the device.
Google updated its Youtube apps so Smart TVs were not affected unless they were on old OSs which did not allow for updates to apps, which is what you're advocating.
Yes, restoring from USB does work.
The data remains your own. They have a license to access it on their servers for the purpose of sending it to you, which some people misinterpret as ownership on the part of the cloud service.
"If you didn't like vista"
Not sure what you mean by "didn't like" and "Vista"!?!?!?!
If you want to go back to an old version of Chrome it's easy: they supply an app which lets you create an image on a USB stick, so you just need to run that for a version you like, and you can return to it at any time. No security updates though, like with XP.
They have stated "there's no plan to phase out Chrome OS". That's more than updating current devices.
The install base of android is irrelevant. If they create a single OS for laptops and phones which can run Android apps then they can roll it out to the android install base on new devices or as upgrades. This is basically what they did between Gingerbread and Ice Cream Sandwich. They already have an android runtime for Chrome, so it's a fair bet that this could be on the cards.
OEM apps are not related to fragmentations, OEM skins are. They can preload their own stuff onto a non-skinned Google Android phone and have zero fragmentation issues.
Google unifies in the cloud. Move from your laptop to your phone and all your data is there!
"In short: end of all development for the platform."
The life support for Chrome devices is for the hardware, not the OS. The OS hits a new version every 6 weeks and is a gradual development, so you won't get a Chrome XP followed by a Chrome 7/10 several years later and be stuck without updates.
You *will* have no updates after 5 years, but there is no indication that development of the OS will end, and newer devices on the same OS version number will continue to be updated.
And you definitely won't get a Chrome Vista!
The "guaranteed auto-updates for five years" remark relates to the support cycle for individual devices, which have a minimum 5-year support. It has no relevance whatsoever to their long-term plans for Chrome OS
It's not a problem. You can just add as much storage as you want for YOUR data.
Really, just one time? Do you realise that another time was the Sarah Sharp incident, where she made a personal attack, swore at him and in return he offered cookies?
There will be people checking to see if the work was done by someone from a protected class so they can ask Linus to resign for offences against social justice. All POC pull requests must be accepted.
Hiding a desktop under a tablet UI didn't work, but adding a touch UI to the desktop seems to be going down well. I hope Google noticed that.
> Chrome OS is a glorified browser with a linux kernel.
No, it's a full OS with "an actual app ecosystem, broad vendor support, etc" as you claim for Android. Dell, Toshiba, Acer, Asus and Lenovo make Chromebooks.
> Android...ships with Chrome. So anything that can run on Chrome OS can be quite
> trivially supported on Android as well.
No, because they would have to port the API and find a way to get extensions to fit into the UI. Chrome on Android is a very inferior product from a user perspective. Android laptops exist, and they don't sell well.
> Which is why Chrome OS never made sense from the very day it launched.
It made sense then and even more so now, with more support and management capabilities.
> ...you can get a similarly priced laptop that is not crippled.
No, because a $200 Windows laptop cannot be relied on to anything that you couldn't do better on a Chromebook.
> This is why Google's latest hybrid laptop and tablet, pixel c, already ships with android.
I doubt it. You can already get Android laptops, but very few actually do.
That article doesn't shed any more light on the matter, it says the number of platforms will be decreased, and not decreased.
From the Verge:
The move marks an effort at Google to reduce the number of independent platforms it has to maintain, sources said.
A Google spokesperson has confirmed to The Verge that both Chrome OS and Android will continue to exist; Chrome OS is not being "killed."
The Verge opposes ethics in journalism. Don't give them clicks.
Those guys deserved their downvotes. Not knowing Chrome has an API and repeating the tired old (and wrong) "spyware" comment are not useful to anyone!
You don't need to give any data to Google, or even to visit any of their domains, in order to use a Chromebook. Other than automatic updates, you could block them at your router and have no problems.
Using a Chromebook means you don't need to give any data whatsoever to any website, ever.
> The "less" is this case is connected to the one thing, a singular, not all the remaining things.
"Less" here is related to the number of things we stared with, compared with the number which remain. There is 1 fewer (or 14% less, which makes no sense because Chromes are whole things).
> A thing cannot be fewer.
There are to be fewer Chromes. It refers to the remainder not what was taken away.
"Bro" should be recognised as a gendered term of abuse and is not appropriate for a file extension, like the N-word. But asking a feminist, as the guy on the Mozilla forum did, if Bro was allowed, is like asking the KKK if the N-word is suitable as a product name. They should have asked a men's rights group instead. We can use Bro between Bros, but feminists should refrain from using it.
Tech does indeed have a sexism problem, and it will remain until the feminists leave us alone.
Linux would lose more if the SJW movement starts attacking the men, claiming women are oppressed, and demanding equal representation in commits. Just having women come in and demand Linux development become a more female space would be detrimental, because the way they make a space female is to institute "harassment policies" which are always used to harass people in the dominant race and gender groups when they refuse to bow to further demands.
"her apparent squeamishness about swearing" was not apparent in the thread where she entered the conversation by mischaracterising what was going on in the conversation as "violence" and complaining the behaviour was "Not *fucking* cool," which was apparently the first f-bomb in the thread.
To her credit, she didn't "seriously think everyone else should change" at this point:
> Yeah, just try yelling at me about this. I'll roar right back, louder
Linus...that MONSTER...ignored the abuse and praised her fortitude. What an awful manager!
> Come to the dark side, Sarah. We have cookies.
> One can only wonder...
The product would be awful but the mailing lists would be a welcoming, inclusive hugbox with puppies and ball pits.
> Linux would have 65% market share...
That's down to the marketing and the UI of the desktop environment. Blame GNOME and Debian, not Linus.
> When confronted he would produce reams of documentation of minor infarctions by others
Microaggressions! For when you're not being victimised but it would be convenient if you were.
Nobody would deny that it's possible to be mean on the internet. Problem is, it was Sarah herself that was mean, rude and wrong.
It's better than github's "be excellent to each other but if they're white you don't have to be" code of conduct.
So she's abusive and supports abusers (block bot and Adria Richards). Exactly what I would have expected to see. Women In Tech (TM) are toxic, but women in tech are cool.
I'm not sure they'd get far with the sexism card for a couple of reasons, primarily because this is already too big and criticism has come from all sides and all genders. But it's interesting that people on twitter who highlight the groups they think will get targeted by users of the app will only cite protected groups - women, minorities, LGBT etc - and never men. When Lulu was launched (an app for women to rate their dates) there was an outcry because women worried "what if guys had an app like this" rather than "what if guys get bullied and abused by users of this app". It's like we live in a society where misandry is just background radiation and men are disposable!
Never mind that men are the group most likely to receive abuse online, and most people who target women are women! The UN recently launched a program to prevent the online victimisation of women by men (the least prevalent form of abuse, but the most important because it fits with their sexist ideology) which demands governments force websites to be responsible for the content they carry, even if it is created by users. Peeple cannot use the sexism and abuse cards because the latest idea to protect the poor little vulnerable women would out them out of business!
They got a $50,000 government grant.
IVF is not so much like GMO. It's more like buying a carrot which has been planter by a farmer instead of one which grew naturally.