I seriously doubt that most people in the EU live in apartment buildings (or flats.) That certainly wasn't true of the UK when I lived there, or Holland or Germany when I've visited them.
But the headline said all he did was record a movie in a theater and that's what he's being punished for! And on Slashdot, headlines are never completely misleading lies!
I wrote my bullet points because I really couldn't believe you wrote what you just did. If I'm interpreting your response correctly, you either are embarassed by what you wrote and are trying to walk it back in a way that doesn't admit you made the mistake at all, or you're trolling. You certainly haven't attempted to clarify how my interpretation is incorrect.
You said: "every woman on Twitter who says anything remotely prominent stops getting hundreds of rape threats in response". This is ludicrous hyperbole, an attempt to foster moral panic.
No, it's a reasonable depiction of the current environment. You, thus far, have claimed it isn't because (1) you claimed only Valenti was getting the threats, and then, when it became clear that wasn't true, that (2) it was only "feminists" who were getting them (and somehow implied this isn't a problem then.)
I'm leaning towards the "I'm being trolled" hypothesis when it comes to your commentary. You're welcome to prove me wrong, but at this point I'd like you to start by:
- Agreeing that it's not just Valenti getting the threats of physical and sexual violence.
- That NOTHING Valenti has said justifies the threats of physical and sexual violence.
- That it is actually misrepresenting someone to post a picture of them wearing what's obviously a joke T-shirt and imply that it isn't a joke, rather than address directly what they've written.
- That the subset of threats of physical and sexual violence I've pointed you at directly were unjustified
- That Feminists do NOT deserve threats of physical and sexual violence.
Once you say, explcitly, the above, I'll respond. But based upon how you've commented thus far, I'm not interpreting it as anything other than how I've described, and I'm concerned you're not arguing in good faith.
I'll bullet point what I'm reading and you can tell me what I'm misunderstanding from your post, if anything:
- The women receiving rape threats are, in your view, Feminists, and so it's not an issue. You don't explain why it's OK if Feminists receive rape threats.
- Michele Malkin has never retweeted numerous death and rape threats despite widespread coverage when it happened. (She's probably a Feminist too, amirite?)
- Valenti has made a career of demonising men, as can be evidenced by one joke T-shirt, which is totally not misrepresenting her views because she wore it in public and even showed a picture of it online which nobody ever does with a joke shirt.
- You bringing up male suicides in response to someone complaining they're seeing more PCism because women online keep getting rape threats is not deflection. Me pointing out that it has nothing to do with the topic at hand is.
Correct?
Here's the truth, which you appear to be completely unable to comprehend:
1. No, Valenti does not hate men, nor has she made a career of demonizing them. I've actually read some of Valenti's stuff, and while she says a lot of nonsense, most of the idiots complaining about misandry are the ones who respond to "Wouldn't it be nice if men didn't ${badthing} women" with "Not all men ${badthing}" despite the fact the sentence was never "It's terrible that ALL MEN ${badthing} women, it should stop!"
2. No, Valenti is not the only one getting rape threats.
3. Sorry to bring up Valenti again, as this issue has nothing to do with her save for her being one of the numerous victims, but asking about the existence of subsidized tampons should not result in you receiving threats of physical and sexual violence, including rape.
4. Thinking it would be nice to have Jane Austin on a banknote does not mean you deserve to be threatened with physical and sexual violence, including rape. Jane Austin is fucking awful, but that is a disproportionate response. BTW, that wasn't Valenti. Valenti is not the receipient of all or most of the rape threats.
5. Even hating liberals should not make you a target for threats of physical or sexual violence.
6. Politely asking men not to hit on women in public spaces like cons should not make you a target for threats of physical or sexual violence. In fact. Rebecca's request was an entirely reasonable one regardless of your views on women.
7. Actually, pretty much no action should result in you getting those threats. None. Not even over-reacting to men making sexist jokes behind you in a way that gets both one of them and yourself fired.
Can I suggest that you actually follow the discussion rather than picking whatever the latest thing you heard and thinking that's what everyone's talking about?
No, it"s not just about Valenti. And no, lots of women, prominent and otherwise, are finding that when they post anything mildly controversial, they get rape threats.
Finally, even if your attempt to misrepresent one columnist using a zero-context photo had legitimacy and didn't misrepresent her, it wouldn't support rape threats against her.
Michele Malkin regularly gets rape threats against her. The woman routinely lies, and smears those who disagree with her. She's a horrible, horrible, person. Whatever Valenti has said pales in comparison. And Malkin she doesn't deserve rape and violence threats either.
And nobody's committed suicide, NOBODY, because they felt they were unable to issue a rape threat against an uppity woman who they disagreed with, so why bring it up?
You're supposing that the DRM is there merely to appease Hollywood. Ever consider the possibility that Hastings might not want their customers downloading movies for watching two years after their subscriptions have expired?
As for offline viewing (something others are mentioning in response as a thing-you-can't-do-because-DRM), Amazon has that. Rhapsody too (albeit for music.) The files are DRM'd too. Netflix can implement offline viewing with the DRM being used to restrict the timeframe used to view the files. Hollywood is probably the reason they don't, but not because of the insistence on DRM.
Hm. So either allow females full control over every aspect of the shared male/female environment or support sending death and rape threats to random women who speak their mind?
I don't think anyone anywhere mainstream is making you make that choice. Rather the idea of the story is that prejudice has little or no place in rational discourse, and that includes blatant misogyny and sexism. Why? Because it isn't rational, and because it leads to horror.
FWIW, I find myself, as I get older, having less and less respect for women as a group (as individuals, of course, everyone deserves to be treated on their own merits), but even as I veer towards misogyny myself, I find it completely ridiculous that we should continue to tolerate a situation where members of one gender - the other being more or less free to say anything - is targeted for frightening abuse up to and including rape and death threats whenever said women speaks their mind on anything remotely controversial, and frequently on topics that shouldn't be controversial at all.
It's fine to say Jane Austin sucks and shouldn't be on a banknote. It adds nothing to the debate, however, to say women shouldn't be on banknotes, and tt's not OK to post rape threats against Caroline Criado-Perez.
But in terms of being "CEO material", my concern is exclusively limited to the idiotic way he handled himself when it become public knowledge he'd funded a specific organization that was running an anti-gay smear campaign.
Ultimately if we're going to limit who gets to run companies purely by whether they're nice people or not, we're going to be stuck with a very short list.
At the same time, accusing anyone with concerns about his donation of running a smear campaign and being unreasonable shows a lack of an ability to deal with people, to deal with conflicting viewpoints. Indeed, Eich's behavior, to be brutally frank, suggests he'd have acted as a thuggish CEO, intolerant of those around him who have the temerity to criticize his actions, and unwilling to engage with them. That isn't just disqualification for a CEO position at a conventional private company, but anethema for one so prominent in Open Source, a movement that is built around cooperation and mutual respect.
Can you come up with some actual examples of individual men being the target of violent threats on Twitter etc because he posts a mildly controversial opinion? (And I think we can agree that suggesting a famous woman be on a dollar bill, or that tampons be subsidized, counts as mildly controversial.)
FWIW incidentally I don't recall any copyright campaigns that aluded to rape, nor any that were aimed exclusively at male offenderes.
I challenged you to prove me wrong, and it appears you've failed on that score. Sorry, but I'm not interested in discussing an issue with a troll who is arguing in bad faith.
I'm pretty sure everyone else can see the difference between firing someone for their political views, and opposing someone being put in a senior leadership position because they handle a controversy badly.
So how, exactly, are you not simply opposed to his politics when you say his only recourse was to change his politics?
When you stop beating your wife, I'll let you know the answer to that one;-)
I think I was "concerned" and I didn't feel "insulted",
Well obviously, because you didn't actually hear what he had to say when he accused you of "are not providing a reasoned argument (and) labeling dissenters to cast them out of polite society."
I would call that an insult. I'm assuming, of course, you really are saying in good faith you were concerned at the time and expressed that concern. I'm also assuming, of course, that you were expressing concern and not actually being unreasonable;-)
If you can't work with or for people who hold political or religious beliefs you disagree with, you have a problem with professionalism.
Quite. Which brings us to why Eich was a bad fit to be a leader of an organization of people whose dissenting opinions he couldn't respect.
No, not really. Men don't generally get hundreds of these level of threats on Twitter et al when they make mildly (or even full on) controversial statements. Propose putting Einstein on a dollar bill, or that men's razors should be free or subsidized, and see if you get anything remotely close to what happens if you're female and suggest or mention female dollar bill characters or subsidized tampons.
No, because that doesn't make any sense given the problem with Eich was not his donation but the way he handled the revelations, insulting anyone that expressed a concern that Eich might not be a potentially inclusive leader.
And FWIW, though it's not relevent, the organization that Eich donated to was homophobic. You might similarly argue that being against interracial marriage is not racist, but whether you do or not, if a specific organization is running ads making claims about blacks and how dangerous they are, if you choose to express your opposition to interracial marriage by donating to that organization, you are donating to a racist organization.
But like I've said three times now today alone, whether Eich is anti-gay, pro-gay, whatever, doesn't matter. What matters is that rather than addressing concerns that he might be non-inclusive, he insulted those who were concerned. That's fine if you want to be churning out code from your basement. It's not OK if you want to lead people.
It wasn't because "he didn't like gays". It was because he "happened to be anti-gay marriage" and donated to a campaign which you disagree with so therefore he has bad judgement and wasn't fit to lead.
No, that's not what I said at all.
I said that Eich made certain bad decisions concerning how he handled a controversial act. The controversial act itself doesn't matter. What matters is that when the issue was raised, instead of saying "I can understand your concern, this is why you shouldn't be concerned", he insulted everyone who'd expressed concern.
Of course, if you're like the 99% of people who responded to me during the controversy, you're going to pretend I didn't write this and respond as if I'm saying Eich should be fired because he doesn't want teh buttsex. I challenge you to prove me wrong.
I'm sure all this overbearing political correctness that tortures you so will start to disappear once it stops being the case that every woman on Twitter who says anything remotely prominent stops getting hundreds of rape threats in response.
But good for you, standing up for the right to be annoyed that uppity women keep complaining about all the rape threats they keep getting.
The problem with it was that it was a rhetorical slight of hand: the Eich controversy wasn't because "he didn't like gays", but because he was being proposed for a leadership position where he'd have to show good judgement and have to manage issues related to that, and through a number of ways related to but not specifically his support for a specific organization that happened to be anti-gay marriage, had shown himself not to have that.
I don't care if someone is anti-gay or not. If they are, they're an idiot IMO, but oh well. I have my own prejudices. If I do something that proves to be obviously non-inclusive, and then on being asked about it, refuse to address the issue and instead attack those who are concerned, that is my right, but I wouldn't expect to be even considered for a leadership position afterwards.
A chicken can be food. A chicken can produce food. Food is one of the basic needs of humans. Therefore, a chicken is about as close as one can get to "inherent value."
The part you quoted was clumsy, but I think the GP's point was that your perceived property rights over the chicken are an abstract socially-enforced concept and thus the chicken has no value that isn't true also of dollar bills - also an abstract socially-enforced concept.
No, in the case we're talking about, the purpose is to ensure code doesn't do bad things. If the code is sandboxed, and it is in this case, and the code has been deliberately run by the user, then it's working WITH the security, not AROUND it.
You can continue to pretend otherwise, but before you do, you'll have to write a 2,000 word essay on how virtually every website built in the last ten years "circumvents" ChromeOS's (and iOS's, etc) security because almost all of them include "unknown code" (written in Javascript, usually to animate something, or validate a form, or whatever) which ChromeOS doesn't "prevent" from running due to some unforeseen MAJOR SECURITY HOLE in that platform.
Don't forget to explain to us too how it's a bad thing for a sandboxed application to run in its sandbox, as designed.
As an alternative to doing so, look up that word "sandbox" you just used and ask yourself what its purpose is, and why it would be implemented in web based operating systems if the very concept of running unknown code is itself considered a security hole regardless of whether the code runs in a sandbox or not...
No, he's saying the advantage is that it works with, not around the security restrictions of many modern platforms, from ChromeOS to iOS.
The purpose of those restrictions in general is to prevent applications from running that do bad things, rather than to prevent the user from actively doing things they want to do. A webpage isn't going to monitor my keystrokes, replicate itself to send to other users, read my email, or even innocently change system settings or upgrade a DLL that happens to cause a techie a headache for several hours later.
(With iOS, of course, there's also the $$$ motive for Apple for disallowing the installation of apps it doesn't approve, but from memory part of the problem is that iOS's app security model is horrendously insecure, so if they allowed arbitrary app downloads and installs, it would be a major problem. OTOH maybe they fixed that.)
He's written a high performance game using technologies that are cross platform, have widespread familiarity, and that allow code to be distributed in a form users are finding preferable to older ways of doing things (ie "just works" rather than "install app, then run")
I don't see the problem. Sure, our Netscape-based Web is showing its age, and we could do with a shake-up of much of it, but OTOH is Javascript (not JS+DOM, just Javascript)+OpenGL really so bad? You know half of Slashdot would be having orgasms if it were written in Python or Ruby, and neither language's performance is any better than Javascript these days.
In one, there are two operating systems, that look and act identically.
In the other, there are two operating systems, both of which try, intelligently, to provide the best and most productive user experience.
I want to live in the second world, not the first. I appreciate you want to live in the first, we know you do, there's usually a bunch of you that pop up in every UI experience discussion on Slashdot. You're not uncommon, and there was even a time that GNOME development was driven by someone like you.
We just don't, for the life of us, understand why. How does it benefit anyone, how does it benefit you, to have a "choice" between two essentially identical (yet incompatable!) systems?
Yep. For the benefit of my (now) fellow Americans: the UK term "corporation" is generally used differently to its US counterpart. Corporations in the US generally refer to private sector bodies, while the term frequently refers to public sector bodies created to manage local cities and towns in the UK. The term isn't exclusively used for city management organizations, but nonetheless it more often refers to public bodies than private ones - the BBC, for example, is a public body that operates under a Royal charter, and is a corporation.
Derivations of the same concept are still used in the US despite the term "corporation" generally never being used directly. For example, areas of counties not served by a city government in the US are described as "unincorporated."
Slashdot Mirror
I seriously doubt that most people in the EU live in apartment buildings (or flats.) That certainly wasn't true of the UK when I lived there, or Holland or Germany when I've visited them.
Yes, I did read the summary. That's why I know that the HEADLINE, which is what I specifically referred to, is a BARE FACED LIE.
You're not stating anything in disagreement with me, you're just hand waving to make it look like you are.
But the headline said all he did was record a movie in a theater and that's what he's being punished for! And on Slashdot, headlines are never completely misleading lies!
I wrote my bullet points because I really couldn't believe you wrote what you just did. If I'm interpreting your response correctly, you either are embarassed by what you wrote and are trying to walk it back in a way that doesn't admit you made the mistake at all, or you're trolling. You certainly haven't attempted to clarify how my interpretation is incorrect.
No, it's a reasonable depiction of the current environment. You, thus far, have claimed it isn't because (1) you claimed only Valenti was getting the threats, and then, when it became clear that wasn't true, that (2) it was only "feminists" who were getting them (and somehow implied this isn't a problem then.)
I'm leaning towards the "I'm being trolled" hypothesis when it comes to your commentary. You're welcome to prove me wrong, but at this point I'd like you to start by:
- Agreeing that it's not just Valenti getting the threats of physical and sexual violence.
- That NOTHING Valenti has said justifies the threats of physical and sexual violence.
- That it is actually misrepresenting someone to post a picture of them wearing what's obviously a joke T-shirt and imply that it isn't a joke, rather than address directly what they've written.
- That the subset of threats of physical and sexual violence I've pointed you at directly were unjustified
- That Feminists do NOT deserve threats of physical and sexual violence.
Once you say, explcitly, the above, I'll respond. But based upon how you've commented thus far, I'm not interpreting it as anything other than how I've described, and I'm concerned you're not arguing in good faith.
I'll bullet point what I'm reading and you can tell me what I'm misunderstanding from your post, if anything:
- The women receiving rape threats are, in your view, Feminists, and so it's not an issue. You don't explain why it's OK if Feminists receive rape threats.
- Michele Malkin has never retweeted numerous death and rape threats despite widespread coverage when it happened. (She's probably a Feminist too, amirite?)
- Valenti has made a career of demonising men, as can be evidenced by one joke T-shirt, which is totally not misrepresenting her views because she wore it in public and even showed a picture of it online which nobody ever does with a joke shirt.
- You bringing up male suicides in response to someone complaining they're seeing more PCism because women online keep getting rape threats is not deflection. Me pointing out that it has nothing to do with the topic at hand is.
Correct?
Here's the truth, which you appear to be completely unable to comprehend:
1. No, Valenti does not hate men, nor has she made a career of demonizing them. I've actually read some of Valenti's stuff, and while she says a lot of nonsense, most of the idiots complaining about misandry are the ones who respond to "Wouldn't it be nice if men didn't ${badthing} women" with "Not all men ${badthing}" despite the fact the sentence was never "It's terrible that ALL MEN ${badthing} women, it should stop!"
2. No, Valenti is not the only one getting rape threats.
3. Sorry to bring up Valenti again, as this issue has nothing to do with her save for her being one of the numerous victims, but asking about the existence of subsidized tampons should not result in you receiving threats of physical and sexual violence, including rape.
4. Thinking it would be nice to have Jane Austin on a banknote does not mean you deserve to be threatened with physical and sexual violence, including rape. Jane Austin is fucking awful, but that is a disproportionate response. BTW, that wasn't Valenti. Valenti is not the receipient of all or most of the rape threats.
5. Even hating liberals should not make you a target for threats of physical or sexual violence.
6. Politely asking men not to hit on women in public spaces like cons should not make you a target for threats of physical or sexual violence. In fact. Rebecca's request was an entirely reasonable one regardless of your views on women.
7. Actually, pretty much no action should result in you getting those threats. None. Not even over-reacting to men making sexist jokes behind you in a way that gets both one of them and yourself fired.
Can I suggest that you actually follow the discussion rather than picking whatever the latest thing you heard and thinking that's what everyone's talking about?
No, it"s not just about Valenti. And no, lots of women, prominent and otherwise, are finding that when they post anything mildly controversial, they get rape threats.
Finally, even if your attempt to misrepresent one columnist using a zero-context photo had legitimacy and didn't misrepresent her, it wouldn't support rape threats against her.
Michele Malkin regularly gets rape threats against her. The woman routinely lies, and smears those who disagree with her. She's a horrible, horrible, person. Whatever Valenti has said pales in comparison. And Malkin she doesn't deserve rape and violence threats either.
And nobody's committed suicide, NOBODY, because they felt they were unable to issue a rape threat against an uppity woman who they disagreed with, so why bring it up?
You're supposing that the DRM is there merely to appease Hollywood. Ever consider the possibility that Hastings might not want their customers downloading movies for watching two years after their subscriptions have expired?
As for offline viewing (something others are mentioning in response as a thing-you-can't-do-because-DRM), Amazon has that. Rhapsody too (albeit for music.) The files are DRM'd too. Netflix can implement offline viewing with the DRM being used to restrict the timeframe used to view the files. Hollywood is probably the reason they don't, but not because of the insistence on DRM.
I don't think anyone anywhere mainstream is making you make that choice. Rather the idea of the story is that prejudice has little or no place in rational discourse, and that includes blatant misogyny and sexism. Why? Because it isn't rational, and because it leads to horror.
FWIW, I find myself, as I get older, having less and less respect for women as a group (as individuals, of course, everyone deserves to be treated on their own merits), but even as I veer towards misogyny myself, I find it completely ridiculous that we should continue to tolerate a situation where members of one gender - the other being more or less free to say anything - is targeted for frightening abuse up to and including rape and death threats whenever said women speaks their mind on anything remotely controversial, and frequently on topics that shouldn't be controversial at all.
We are not Iran. Hell, Iran is not Iran.
It's fine to say Jane Austin sucks and shouldn't be on a banknote. It adds nothing to the debate, however, to say women shouldn't be on banknotes, and tt's not OK to post rape threats against Caroline Criado-Perez.
As a human being, yes, I agree he should do.
But in terms of being "CEO material", my concern is exclusively limited to the idiotic way he handled himself when it become public knowledge he'd funded a specific organization that was running an anti-gay smear campaign.
Ultimately if we're going to limit who gets to run companies purely by whether they're nice people or not, we're going to be stuck with a very short list.
At the same time, accusing anyone with concerns about his donation of running a smear campaign and being unreasonable shows a lack of an ability to deal with people, to deal with conflicting viewpoints. Indeed, Eich's behavior, to be brutally frank, suggests he'd have acted as a thuggish CEO, intolerant of those around him who have the temerity to criticize his actions, and unwilling to engage with them. That isn't just disqualification for a CEO position at a conventional private company, but anethema for one so prominent in Open Source, a movement that is built around cooperation and mutual respect.
Are you responding to my comment or did you hit the wrong Reply button?
Not seeing anything about slavery there, nor anything vague or any words being used with the wrong definitions.
Can you come up with some actual examples of individual men being the target of violent threats on Twitter etc because he posts a mildly controversial opinion? (And I think we can agree that suggesting a famous woman be on a dollar bill, or that tampons be subsidized, counts as mildly controversial.)
FWIW incidentally I don't recall any copyright campaigns that aluded to rape, nor any that were aimed exclusively at male offenderes.
I challenged you to prove me wrong, and it appears you've failed on that score. Sorry, but I'm not interested in discussing an issue with a troll who is arguing in bad faith.
I'm pretty sure everyone else can see the difference between firing someone for their political views, and opposing someone being put in a senior leadership position because they handle a controversy badly.
When you stop beating your wife, I'll let you know the answer to that one ;-)
Well obviously, because you didn't actually hear what he had to say when he accused you of "are not providing a reasoned argument (and) labeling dissenters to cast them out of polite society."
I would call that an insult. I'm assuming, of course, you really are saying in good faith you were concerned at the time and expressed that concern. I'm also assuming, of course, that you were expressing concern and not actually being unreasonable ;-)
Quite. Which brings us to why Eich was a bad fit to be a leader of an organization of people whose dissenting opinions he couldn't respect.
No, not really. Men don't generally get hundreds of these level of threats on Twitter et al when they make mildly (or even full on) controversial statements. Propose putting Einstein on a dollar bill, or that men's razors should be free or subsidized, and see if you get anything remotely close to what happens if you're female and suggest or mention female dollar bill characters or subsidized tampons.
No, because that doesn't make any sense given the problem with Eich was not his donation but the way he handled the revelations, insulting anyone that expressed a concern that Eich might not be a potentially inclusive leader.
And FWIW, though it's not relevent, the organization that Eich donated to was homophobic. You might similarly argue that being against interracial marriage is not racist, but whether you do or not, if a specific organization is running ads making claims about blacks and how dangerous they are, if you choose to express your opposition to interracial marriage by donating to that organization, you are donating to a racist organization.
But like I've said three times now today alone, whether Eich is anti-gay, pro-gay, whatever, doesn't matter. What matters is that rather than addressing concerns that he might be non-inclusive, he insulted those who were concerned. That's fine if you want to be churning out code from your basement. It's not OK if you want to lead people.
No, that's not what I said at all.
I said that Eich made certain bad decisions concerning how he handled a controversial act. The controversial act itself doesn't matter. What matters is that when the issue was raised, instead of saying "I can understand your concern, this is why you shouldn't be concerned", he insulted everyone who'd expressed concern.
Of course, if you're like the 99% of people who responded to me during the controversy, you're going to pretend I didn't write this and respond as if I'm saying Eich should be fired because he doesn't want teh buttsex. I challenge you to prove me wrong.
I'm sure all this overbearing political correctness that tortures you so will start to disappear once it stops being the case that every woman on Twitter who says anything remotely prominent stops getting hundreds of rape threats in response.
But good for you, standing up for the right to be annoyed that uppity women keep complaining about all the rape threats they keep getting.
The problem with it was that it was a rhetorical slight of hand: the Eich controversy wasn't because "he didn't like gays", but because he was being proposed for a leadership position where he'd have to show good judgement and have to manage issues related to that, and through a number of ways related to but not specifically his support for a specific organization that happened to be anti-gay marriage, had shown himself not to have that.
I don't care if someone is anti-gay or not. If they are, they're an idiot IMO, but oh well. I have my own prejudices. If I do something that proves to be obviously non-inclusive, and then on being asked about it, refuse to address the issue and instead attack those who are concerned, that is my right, but I wouldn't expect to be even considered for a leadership position afterwards.
The part you quoted was clumsy, but I think the GP's point was that your perceived property rights over the chicken are an abstract socially-enforced concept and thus the chicken has no value that isn't true also of dollar bills - also an abstract socially-enforced concept.
No, in the case we're talking about, the purpose is to ensure code doesn't do bad things. If the code is sandboxed, and it is in this case, and the code has been deliberately run by the user, then it's working WITH the security, not AROUND it.
You can continue to pretend otherwise, but before you do, you'll have to write a 2,000 word essay on how virtually every website built in the last ten years "circumvents" ChromeOS's (and iOS's, etc) security because almost all of them include "unknown code" (written in Javascript, usually to animate something, or validate a form, or whatever) which ChromeOS doesn't "prevent" from running due to some unforeseen MAJOR SECURITY HOLE in that platform.
Don't forget to explain to us too how it's a bad thing for a sandboxed application to run in its sandbox, as designed.
As an alternative to doing so, look up that word "sandbox" you just used and ask yourself what its purpose is, and why it would be implemented in web based operating systems if the very concept of running unknown code is itself considered a security hole regardless of whether the code runs in a sandbox or not...
No, he's saying the advantage is that it works with, not around the security restrictions of many modern platforms, from ChromeOS to iOS.
The purpose of those restrictions in general is to prevent applications from running that do bad things, rather than to prevent the user from actively doing things they want to do. A webpage isn't going to monitor my keystrokes, replicate itself to send to other users, read my email, or even innocently change system settings or upgrade a DLL that happens to cause a techie a headache for several hours later.
(With iOS, of course, there's also the $$$ motive for Apple for disallowing the installation of apps it doesn't approve, but from memory part of the problem is that iOS's app security model is horrendously insecure, so if they allowed arbitrary app downloads and installs, it would be a major problem. OTOH maybe they fixed that.)
He's written a high performance game using technologies that are cross platform, have widespread familiarity, and that allow code to be distributed in a form users are finding preferable to older ways of doing things (ie "just works" rather than "install app, then run")
I don't see the problem. Sure, our Netscape-based Web is showing its age, and we could do with a shake-up of much of it, but OTOH is Javascript (not JS+DOM, just Javascript)+OpenGL really so bad? You know half of Slashdot would be having orgasms if it were written in Python or Ruby, and neither language's performance is any better than Javascript these days.
There are two worlds.
In one, there are two operating systems, that look and act identically.
In the other, there are two operating systems, both of which try, intelligently, to provide the best and most productive user experience.
I want to live in the second world, not the first. I appreciate you want to live in the first, we know you do, there's usually a bunch of you that pop up in every UI experience discussion on Slashdot. You're not uncommon, and there was even a time that GNOME development was driven by someone like you.
We just don't, for the life of us, understand why. How does it benefit anyone, how does it benefit you, to have a "choice" between two essentially identical (yet incompatable!) systems?
Right click on video player, "Save video as...", then when the Save dialog comes up, where it says "File type" switch from ".drm" to ".mp4".
Yep. For the benefit of my (now) fellow Americans: the UK term "corporation" is generally used differently to its US counterpart. Corporations in the US generally refer to private sector bodies, while the term frequently refers to public sector bodies created to manage local cities and towns in the UK. The term isn't exclusively used for city management organizations, but nonetheless it more often refers to public bodies than private ones - the BBC, for example, is a public body that operates under a Royal charter, and is a corporation.
Derivations of the same concept are still used in the US despite the term "corporation" generally never being used directly. For example, areas of counties not served by a city government in the US are described as "unincorporated."