That's the wrong question. The right question is this:
What fundamental problem cannot be solved by trivially tweaking or skinning the existing OSes?
If you have an answer for that question, then clearly there's a need for a third OS. If the new OS is just going to be a knock-off of iOS and Android with nothing fundamentally different, then you might as well just use Android and avoid trifurcating the developer community.
as much as i realize that the privacy horse has already left the barn, it'd be the problems of privacy and information mining. Google has gotten to the point of maliciousness. Apple isn't quite there yet but they're close. we need an OS that doesn't mine and share every bit of data.
this all comes back to the "last mile" problem. in Europe, governments have much more power and leverage to open up the last mile infrastructure, increasing competition. in the U.S., the corporations have a chokehold on that last mile, and politicians are either reluctant to bite the donation hand that feeds them or are ideologically against such "socialism". idiotic. the EU has the right of it.
"better yet, come back at me when you can explain why Heather Heyer had to *die*"
Guess you didn't watch the video, eh? The car hadn't done anything until AFTER Antifa started smashing it, thus attacking the person in the car, and then to top it off, they surrounded the vehicle. That is a clear assault and intent to commit further violent action, to which the guy responded by fleeing through the crowd, in his vehicle which was his only safe avenue of escape. She had to die because her idiot friends couldn't control their violent thug fucking urges.
yeah, that's not what happened. he barreled down an empty street TOWARDS A CROWD, backed up, and then SPED AT THEM AGAIN. he's been charged with MURDER. you're a fool.
come back at me the next time you've had someone call you a "chink" and tell you to "go back home" when you already are.
Everyone has been called hurtful things in their life. It's unfortunate, but part of growing up is rising above it.
You and I don't have to listen to hurtful speech, but we can't stop their right to say it to people who want to hear it.
spoken like someone who benefits from systemic racism.
Disagree. It would be like Staples being able to refuse to sell you paper because they don't like what you're writing on the paper. Or Dell refusing to sell you a computer for what you write.
and Staples and Dell would be in their rights to do so. it's called the free market. why do you hate the free market?
Especially if the paper were to be used to print invitations to a gay wedding...
nuh uh, you're not getting away with this one.
turning away customers because they're going to use your product to say vile shit = sure, whatever
turning away customers because of WHO THEY INTRINSICALLY ARE = discrimination
Why can't you morons discern between speech and actions?
why can't YOU realize that some speech IS action. yelling fire in a crowded room. calling for the lynching of black people. screaming for a "whites only" country. stop being naive or bluntly obtuse, whatever you're doing.
Disagree. It would be like Staples being able to refuse to sell you paper because they don't like what you're writing on the paper. Or Dell refusing to sell you a computer for what you write.
and Staples and Dell would be in their rights to do so. it's called the free market. why do you hate the free market?
If Antifa and BLM had just stayed home and not gone to Charlotte, then KKK and Nazis would have had their rally, looked like fools, and then gone home.
Everyone would see what fools they are. The press would make a single mention o the rally and that would be it. No one would care what they said or think.
But nooo. They had to go in and start some shit. Now, they are the opposite side of the coin. Anyone who wanted to justify the KKK and Nazis just had to point to Antifa and BLM.
Good job guys.
yes, let's just let the KKK and Nazis go unchallenged that'll show them.
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me.
Talking about nazism and racism, even promoting such views is free speech. It's not an assault on anyone, it's only words. If someone is promoting such views then at least you know where they stand and can decide wether to have dealings with them or not. Which is better than them holding such views in secret.
Would you want to do business with someone who secretly hates you and thinks you have no right to live? I certainly wouldn't. I would choose to take my business elsewhere if i knew someone to be a nazi or hold any other such extremist views.
Anti-nazi speech should similarly be protected, and people should be just as free to tell nazis (and any other groups) exactly what they think of them.
Speech should be protected, draw the line at actual physical violence.
come back at me the next time you've had someone call you a "chink" and tell you to "go back home" when you already are.
better yet, come back at me when you can explain why Heather Heyer had to *die*
Anyone who defends Free Speech these days is called a Nazi and Racist and their words are called "violent".
Make no mistake, your protestations are not about human decency, they are about a creeping authoritarianism from the left that would allow only approved speech. Guess who the people approving it would be...ya...
i'm a fan of freedom of speech. FOR ALL. nazis and racists actively work to deny the freedom of speech of people of color. if you actually believe in freedom of speech, there is NO ROOM for racists who silence folks of color through violence and intimidation. it's the paradox of tolerance.
They're stopping people from providing funds for a lawyer. Perhaps you'll understand some day. Ass-hole.
no they're not. explain to me how supporters are blocked from sending this guy checks or cash. or sending whoever the attorney is checks or cash. answer: they're not.
also explain to me why GoFundMe et al should be forced to facilitate the funding of a murderer? answer: why the fuck should they be?
So the first line has two references in it, and you say "backed by nothing". The last line again contains a reference. Discuss the references, don't pretend he's basing it on nothing.
The extraversion part has no references, true. But this is not a research paper - it is an internal memo that is more full of citations than I've ever seen in a memo. If you worked at Google, it would be totally reasonable to ask where the hell he got that part from (though to be honest I found it right away Googling for it).
And if the Google climate can't handle the debunking of a young man's memo, then it is all he is accusing it of being. He didn't drink the Kool-Aid.
one of the references is a sociology paper that does not back his conclusion, and the other references are cites to Wikipedia. give me a break.
you still don't get it. this rant called women "neurotic" and "anxious". that by itself created a hostile work environment towards women. Google was forced to act, and they were right in firing him.
he outright asserted, based on no proof or bad science, that women have "more anxiety" and are somehow biologically not suited to be engineers.
Congratulations, you revealed yourself to have not read the paper. Citation please.
you're kidding, right? all of page four. bald, sexist assertions. no citations to, well, anything. here, i'll help:
Personality differences
Women, on average, have more:
Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally
also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also
interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing).
These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social
or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even
within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both
people and aesthetics.
Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher
agreeableness.
This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for
raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences
and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a
women’s issue. This leads to exclusory programs like Stretch and swaths of men
without support.
Yes, despite his memo's rather awkward inclusion of female vs. male traits, it was actually a memo about Google's intolerant culture - and they did a wonderful job of proving his point for him.
except the whole sections on "male" vs. "female" traits are WHY Google fired him. he outright asserted, based on no proof or bad science, that women have "more anxiety" and are somehow biologically not suited to be engineers.
he created a hostile work environment with this one part alone. of COURSE Google has to fire him. what woman would be willing to work with such a toolbox?
Federal law states people cannot be denied entry to the United States purely on the basis of their nationality.
precisely stated, what the Immigration and Nationality Act states is: "Except as specifically provided in paragraph (2) and in sections 101(a)(27), 201(b)(2)(A)(i), and 203, no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person's race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence."
"Paragraph 2" talks about the per-country quotas. 101(a)(27) is for "Special Immigrants" (think unaccompanied minor refugees). 201(b)(2)(A)(i) sets aside visas immediately for spouses, children, and parents of U.S. citizens (if parents, the U.S. citizen has to be 21 or older - anchor babies are a myth). 203 outlines preference categories for family members and employment-based cases.
so, for at least persons seeking immigrant visas (looking to live in the U.S. permanently), Congress has said that the government cannot discriminate against immigrants on the basis of race, nationality, and/or place of birth, except under the sections specifically broken out.
Trump's problem is that he publicly stated the ban is against "muslims" and against persons of specific nationalities or places of birth. he is on record both pre-campaign and during presidency.
the INA DOES permit the government to bar persons who will cause harm to the U.S. from entering. but that is an entirely different issue than what the Trump admin is doing here.
So what happens if not enough people want to be doctors? Wait times grow arbitrarily. (This is also a problem in the US for some specialties, but it illustrates my point).
You need a system for rationing the available care-providing resources. You need a system for deciding how much to fund care and research. A market-based system couples these, giving an optimal answer. The current US system is the worst of both worlds, because health insurance is procured by companies, not by consumers. No market signal, and some people aren't covered. The only worse idea is the O-care exchanges.
the market is terrible for this. it results in gougers like Martin Shkreli. or the deplorables running EpiPen. capitalism demands making an immediate profit in the short term with no care for the long term - the absolute opposite of what health care should be about.
the problem is that economic conditions are now forcing people to MAKE this their full time job. and severe cuts to healthcare and the general safety net are tightening the screws, not to mention the steamroller of automation coming down the pike. 1099 work might have been fine at one point, but it is NOW becoming a capitalists' wet dream and a regular worker's worst nightmare.
Your lack of the ability to form coherent sentence that use proper grammar and punctuation will serve you well in the "Gig Economy."
this is a troll. you have two glaring grammar errors in your own sentence. 3/10, go practice on Reddit or something.
Slashdot Mirror
That's the wrong question. The right question is this:
What fundamental problem cannot be solved by trivially tweaking or skinning the existing OSes?
If you have an answer for that question, then clearly there's a need for a third OS. If the new OS is just going to be a knock-off of iOS and Android with nothing fundamentally different, then you might as well just use Android and avoid trifurcating the developer community.
as much as i realize that the privacy horse has already left the barn, it'd be the problems of privacy and information mining. Google has gotten to the point of maliciousness. Apple isn't quite there yet but they're close. we need an OS that doesn't mine and share every bit of data.
this all comes back to the "last mile" problem. in Europe, governments have much more power and leverage to open up the last mile infrastructure, increasing competition. in the U.S., the corporations have a chokehold on that last mile, and politicians are either reluctant to bite the donation hand that feeds them or are ideologically against such "socialism". idiotic. the EU has the right of it.
Because it's incredible how stupid this whole thing has been.
How can anyone be this bad at their core business?
the "free market" at work: screwing over ordinary people because who's going to stop them?
Are you saying that the video is fake?
Just that, you're ducking the question on whether this meets your definition of hate speech or not.
Lets make it easy for you. Skip the video, skip Youtube entirely. A simple question: Is advocating for the death of police officers hate speech?
and you're deflecting by using right wing propaganda to divert from the whole point: nazis are EVIL. you're doing what that jackass James O'Keefe was doing by doctoring videos and lying to the public. GFY.
Nah. You sound a lot more like a Nazi than a liberal.
oh i must be confused then after having railed against nazis this entire thread. come on, don't post AC you coward.
oh man you think i'm a liberal. hoo boy
"better yet, come back at me when you can explain why Heather Heyer had to *die*"
Guess you didn't watch the video, eh? The car hadn't done anything until AFTER Antifa started smashing it, thus attacking the person in the car, and then to top it off, they surrounded the vehicle. That is a clear assault and intent to commit further violent action, to which the guy responded by fleeing through the crowd, in his vehicle which was his only safe avenue of escape. She had to die because her idiot friends couldn't control their violent thug fucking urges.
yeah, that's not what happened. he barreled down an empty street TOWARDS A CROWD, backed up, and then SPED AT THEM AGAIN. he's been charged with MURDER. you're a fool.
you keep linking right-wing youtube channels. there's no way they're not credible. /s
look, just save yourself the trouble and link directly to Trump or something. at least you save time.
Nah, I know what it's like to be punched in the face over racism. Look how Martin Luther King dealt with it:
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." - Martin Luther King
and he was shot to death by a white racist. no fucking more.
Then we have thousands who should be tried for every murder of a police officer in the last year, right?
yeah, those aren't BLM protesters. keep the lies up though! the nazi movement needs your support! /s
come back at me the next time you've had someone call you a "chink" and tell you to "go back home" when you already are.
Everyone has been called hurtful things in their life. It's unfortunate, but part of growing up is rising above it. You and I don't have to listen to hurtful speech, but we can't stop their right to say it to people who want to hear it.
spoken like someone who benefits from systemic racism.
Disagree. It would be like Staples being able to refuse to sell you paper because they don't like what you're writing on the paper. Or Dell refusing to sell you a computer for what you write.
and Staples and Dell would be in their rights to do so. it's called the free market. why do you hate the free market?
Especially if the paper were to be used to print invitations to a gay wedding...
nuh uh, you're not getting away with this one.
turning away customers because they're going to use your product to say vile shit = sure, whatever
turning away customers because of WHO THEY INTRINSICALLY ARE = discrimination
it's pretty damned obvious.
Giving a speech gassing anyone.
Why can't you morons discern between speech and actions?
why can't YOU realize that some speech IS action. yelling fire in a crowded room. calling for the lynching of black people. screaming for a "whites only" country. stop being naive or bluntly obtuse, whatever you're doing.
Disagree. It would be like Staples being able to refuse to sell you paper because they don't like what you're writing on the paper. Or Dell refusing to sell you a computer for what you write.
and Staples and Dell would be in their rights to do so. it's called the free market. why do you hate the free market?
If Antifa and BLM had just stayed home and not gone to Charlotte, then KKK and Nazis would have had their rally, looked like fools, and then gone home.
Everyone would see what fools they are. The press would make a single mention o the rally and that would be it. No one would care what they said or think.
But nooo. They had to go in and start some shit. Now, they are the opposite side of the coin. Anyone who wanted to justify the KKK and Nazis just had to point to Antifa and BLM.
Good job guys.
yes, let's just let the KKK and Nazis go unchallenged that'll show them.
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me.
Talking about nazism and racism, even promoting such views is free speech. It's not an assault on anyone, it's only words. If someone is promoting such views then at least you know where they stand and can decide wether to have dealings with them or not. Which is better than them holding such views in secret. Would you want to do business with someone who secretly hates you and thinks you have no right to live? I certainly wouldn't. I would choose to take my business elsewhere if i knew someone to be a nazi or hold any other such extremist views.
Anti-nazi speech should similarly be protected, and people should be just as free to tell nazis (and any other groups) exactly what they think of them.
Speech should be protected, draw the line at actual physical violence.
come back at me the next time you've had someone call you a "chink" and tell you to "go back home" when you already are.
better yet, come back at me when you can explain why Heather Heyer had to *die*
Anyone who defends Free Speech these days is called a Nazi and Racist and their words are called "violent".
Make no mistake, your protestations are not about human decency, they are about a creeping authoritarianism from the left that would allow only approved speech. Guess who the people approving it would be...ya...
i'm a fan of freedom of speech. FOR ALL. nazis and racists actively work to deny the freedom of speech of people of color. if you actually believe in freedom of speech, there is NO ROOM for racists who silence folks of color through violence and intimidation. it's the paradox of tolerance.
Cool that someone still stands for freedom of speech.
Most people were brainwashed to think that freedom of speech means "freedom to say anything - as long this are the 'good things'".
Naziism and racism is not "speech" - it's an assault on human beings and should be stopped.
They're stopping people from providing funds for a lawyer. Perhaps you'll understand some day. Ass-hole.
no they're not. explain to me how supporters are blocked from sending this guy checks or cash. or sending whoever the attorney is checks or cash. answer: they're not.
also explain to me why GoFundMe et al should be forced to facilitate the funding of a murderer? answer: why the fuck should they be?
So the first line has two references in it, and you say "backed by nothing". The last line again contains a reference. Discuss the references, don't pretend he's basing it on nothing.
The extraversion part has no references, true. But this is not a research paper - it is an internal memo that is more full of citations than I've ever seen in a memo. If you worked at Google, it would be totally reasonable to ask where the hell he got that part from (though to be honest I found it right away Googling for it).
And if the Google climate can't handle the debunking of a young man's memo, then it is all he is accusing it of being. He didn't drink the Kool-Aid.
one of the references is a sociology paper that does not back his conclusion, and the other references are cites to Wikipedia. give me a break.
you still don't get it. this rant called women "neurotic" and "anxious". that by itself created a hostile work environment towards women. Google was forced to act, and they were right in firing him.
he outright asserted, based on no proof or bad science, that women have "more anxiety" and are somehow biologically not suited to be engineers.
Congratulations, you revealed yourself to have not read the paper. Citation please.
you're kidding, right? all of page four. bald, sexist assertions. no citations to, well, anything. here, i'll help:
all of this is pseudoscientific bs backed by nothing.
what woman would be willing to work with such a toolbox?
Any woman willing to discuss facts and science.
of which this "memo" is sorely lacking.
Google was foolish to fire him.
Yes, despite his memo's rather awkward inclusion of female vs. male traits, it was actually a memo about Google's intolerant culture - and they did a wonderful job of proving his point for him.
except the whole sections on "male" vs. "female" traits are WHY Google fired him. he outright asserted, based on no proof or bad science, that women have "more anxiety" and are somehow biologically not suited to be engineers.
he created a hostile work environment with this one part alone. of COURSE Google has to fire him. what woman would be willing to work with such a toolbox?
Federal law states people cannot be denied entry to the United States purely on the basis of their nationality.
precisely stated, what the Immigration and Nationality Act states is: "Except as specifically provided in paragraph (2) and in sections 101(a)(27), 201(b)(2)(A)(i), and 203, no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person's race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence."
"Paragraph 2" talks about the per-country quotas. 101(a)(27) is for "Special Immigrants" (think unaccompanied minor refugees). 201(b)(2)(A)(i) sets aside visas immediately for spouses, children, and parents of U.S. citizens (if parents, the U.S. citizen has to be 21 or older - anchor babies are a myth). 203 outlines preference categories for family members and employment-based cases.
so, for at least persons seeking immigrant visas (looking to live in the U.S. permanently), Congress has said that the government cannot discriminate against immigrants on the basis of race, nationality, and/or place of birth, except under the sections specifically broken out.
Trump's problem is that he publicly stated the ban is against "muslims" and against persons of specific nationalities or places of birth. he is on record both pre-campaign and during presidency.
the INA DOES permit the government to bar persons who will cause harm to the U.S. from entering. but that is an entirely different issue than what the Trump admin is doing here.
Conscription was never an element.
So what happens if not enough people want to be doctors? Wait times grow arbitrarily. (This is also a problem in the US for some specialties, but it illustrates my point).
You need a system for rationing the available care-providing resources. You need a system for deciding how much to fund care and research. A market-based system couples these, giving an optimal answer. The current US system is the worst of both worlds, because health insurance is procured by companies, not by consumers. No market signal, and some people aren't covered. The only worse idea is the O-care exchanges.
the market is terrible for this. it results in gougers like Martin Shkreli. or the deplorables running EpiPen. capitalism demands making an immediate profit in the short term with no care for the long term - the absolute opposite of what health care should be about.
the problem is that economic conditions are now forcing people to MAKE this their full time job. and severe cuts to healthcare and the general safety net are tightening the screws, not to mention the steamroller of automation coming down the pike. 1099 work might have been fine at one point, but it is NOW becoming a capitalists' wet dream and a regular worker's worst nightmare.
Your lack of the ability to form coherent sentence that use proper grammar and punctuation will serve you well in the "Gig Economy."
this is a troll. you have two glaring grammar errors in your own sentence. 3/10, go practice on Reddit or something.