bpreece

> You'll notice I said hate Americans, and not hate Sally, or Bobby, or Jane

I don't even know what this means. What does it mean to hate Americans if you don't hate, you know, Americans, like Sally or Bobby or Jane? What exactly are you hating?

You don't hate Americans, you hate Trump and his cabal. You hate the people who voted for him. Good for you. Do you also hate the Americans who voted against Trump because of the ones who voted for him? If yes, then that's absolutely bigotry. If no, then you could just as rationally say you love Americans, because, I mean, look at all the Americans who opposed Trump?

You say you don't hate Sally or Bobby or Jane, but that's exactly what you do when you hate Americans.

> That's still anti-russian, no?

No. That's anti-fascist, or anti-authoritarian, or anti-belligerent, or anti-whatever it is about their support that you don't like. That's judging them as individuals because of what they as individuals think. Disliking them just because they're Russion, regardless of that they think about Putin's government, that would be bigotry.

Yes it is wrong. You don't punish any one individual for something another different individual has done. This is a basic moral principal. Half of US voters voted against Donald Trump. The chaos and pain he causes is not on them. Many Jews were appalled and angered by the invasion of Lebanon. They're not responsible for what the Israeli government did. Humans are not bees. We don't have a queen, we don't have a hive mind. This group think, that Americans should all be judged as a whole, that Jews are all an indistinguishable mass, is the very definition of bigotry and prejudice. This is what MLK meant when he said we should be judged by the content of our character, not the color of our skin. I am me, not whatever group you want to toss me into. So, yes, it's wrong.

Hank Williams gets it right. The article at drama20show (which thamer links) looks on the surface like the kind of pedantry that tries to show how smart you are by showing how dumb everyone else is. By this narrow definition that limits the OS to just the kernel, neither Windows nor Linux are OSes. They each include an OS, but they also include one or more desktops and standard applications. Actually, the fact that there exists a distinct word for the kernel - that would be "kernel" - is probably evidence that there's a basic problem with the narrow definition.

BUT ...

This is all just another pointless semantics argument. It fails to see what's really going down here: Google wants folks to write their applications for Chrome. Not for Windows. Not for Linux. Not for Solaris. For Chrome. That's the point. And that's interesting: they want the platform for writing applications to be their browser.

Whether this means you can now call Chrome the operation system is beside the point.

Also, the statement "That period coincided with a little ice age on Earth that lasted from 1650 to 1700" is inaccurate. Actually, the period from 1650 to 1700 is not for the little ice age, but for the Maunder Minimum, the previous period when there were few sunspots. The little ice age has no sharp beginning, and is variously said to start almost anywhere after the medieval warm period - say anywhere from mid-14th century to the mid-17th century. The little ice age ended with the beginning of global warming in the mid-19th century.

All this aside, suppose you really do have a new and novel idea that really could be useful and make money. How would you go about finding a web programmer?

On the one hand, you can't really afford to hire a good one because you don't have any money yet, but on the other hand you can't afford to put up a crappy web site either. Seems like a Catch 22.