For reference – "your morals do not line up with my morals" is not the same thing as "your morals don't line up with the rest of society".
Agreed. The original comment mentioned only ethics and I was lazy in including the word "morals" in mine.
You do not have a moral obligation to return a favour if someone does you one. You may be a nice person, and you may feel more inclined to be nice to people who are nice to you, but you certainly do not have a moral obligation to do so.
And I never said that you were obligated to do so. There are many times in life where I don't do something that I feel is the right thing to do; life is complex and requires many competing value judgments. Indeed, your morals can be such that you believe the world owes you and you owe it nothing. This is not an ethical outlook nor one conducive to a functioning culture, but certainly is valid morally speaking.
More so, I'd argue that people who have a sense of entitlement because they think they've done something nice for someone else have the bigger moral flaw. If you give something away for free, you have given it away for free, you have not made an agreement to receive future free shit from the other party – if you wanted that, you'd have made that agreement with them.
I might not agree that the flaw here is greater, but I concur 100% otherwise. Again, you seem stuck on the notion of obligation and expectations. If I do something for someone, it is because I wanted to do so. I do not expect anything in return. Of course, if they are able but never reciprocate, I am less included to continue doing favors. It really is no different than the basic notion of friendship - one-sided friendships usually are dysfunctional and short-lived.
So again, at least as far as I'm concerned, FOSS is about "hey, I made this cool thing, have it, because I'm nice", not "hey, I made half of this cool thing, because I wrote it I now have a sense of entitlement to your cool things too."
And this doesn't conflict at all with my position. The Golden Rule doesn't say that you should expect others to do unto you as you do until them - it says you should do until others as you'd have them do unto you. Nothing more and nothing less. If you take advantage of this cool thing and have the ability to somehow contribute back, you ought to do so. Failing to do so is not ethical, regardless of what psychopathic moral code you might carry.
To repeat from my previous post, the culture of FOSS requires a certain ratio of suppliers and consumers. If the Apples and Googles of the world take from the FOSS community but never give anything back, while making tons of money on the work of others, they will eventually destroy the community. On the other hand, if they return the favor (not even at the level that they could or at which they profited) they encourage the community to grow and prosper.
And like the GP, your ethics/morals are clearly out of sync with what society considers normal or expected. If someone gives you something at a free or reduced cost, they did you a favor. If you can do the same for them, or someone else, it is generally considered the appropriate thing to do. Of course there is no legal requirement that you be a nice person. Most governments provide you the freedom to be an asshole if you want. That doesn't make it the right thing to do.
If you aren't a skilled developer, you may have nothing to offer back to a FOSS project. Or, you may legitimately not have the time right now. That's okay. However, the whole notion of FOSS (and, by extension, civil society and culture) rely on the notion that the ratio of nice people to assholes is sufficient to continue forward.
I don't understand why this nonsense gets modded up. Apple is under no ethical obligation to contribute anything to open source. They are under a legal obligation to contribute to open source software in specific circumstances, such as in the case of distributing of modified GPL software. Its complete bullshit to expect any company or person to go above and beyond the legal obligations of using open source software, even if that software is helping them bring in heaps of cash.
Yes, you make it quite clear that you don't understand the concept of ethics or morals.
The accuracy of that statement varies greatly depending on where you are. In rural areas, the GP's statement is pretty spot on. Suburban and urban "hunters" who deer hunt for a head on the wall are much less likely to care about the meat. And don't lose sight (as most in this thread seem to have) of the fact that these weren't hunters - they were target shooters using live animals. Do not confuse them with hunters.
best tasting meat I ever ate
Objectively false. There's a reason they call game meat "gamey". Your experience may differ, obviously, but only because you've eaten either 1) game meat or 2) shit.
What an ignorant comment. I can immediately tell if the burger in my spaghetti sauce is deer, beef, or turkey but different flavor doesn't make one "objectively" better or worse. Many actually prefer the lower fat (and healthier) meat of game animals over corn-fed beef.
No. The browser is supposed to ignore the whole thing if it doesn't find anything it understands. Why MS doesn't make IE just go with the default of NO in those cases, I don't know.
Because their implementation of P3P is broken. Of course, P3P itself is a broken standard that was never finished and is horribly out of date.
Of course, why Google sends such a non-statement is questionable as well.
Because Google does not support the crap standard but some browsers still want it. They pass a P3P header to the browser. They don't provide any P3P-compliant statements, instead providing a link to why they don't support P3P.
You'd expect shady sites to "attack" a gentleman's agreement, not Google. If you think they're the same, would you be okay with hosting your mail on warez-email.com ? After all, they're both on the big bad internet.
So I guess you're saying that we should be upset with Microsoft for their piss poor implementation of P3P?
In other words, if your server delivers a garbage or blank P3P header, the browser assumes there are no privacy implications? Sounds like a hole in the standard to me, such headers should be ignored IMO.
And the standard agrees with you. Even Microsoft admits as much in their blog post:
The P3P specification (in an attempt to leave room for future advances in privacy policies) states that browsers should ignore any undefined policies they encounter.
What Google is doing certainly is outside the spirit of the P3P system. They clearly are doing it on purpose.
That said, P3P was an incomplete idea that has sat around a decade or so waiting to be finished. This issue has been documented and pretty well known for at least two years. It wouldn't be an issue if Microsoft correctly parsed the P3P header. Microsoft bringing this up now and trying to lay all the blame on Google is a calculated PR pile on.
Not even Microsoft supports your argument. From their blog post:
Technically, Google utilizes a nuance in the P3P specification that has the effect of bypassing user preferences about cookies. The P3P specification (in an attempt to leave room for future advances in privacy policies) states that browsers should ignore any undefined policies they encounter.
Rather than ignoring it, IE is assuming that Google told them something positive.
From my reading of Microsoft's long blog post, Google didn't violate the spec. IE does not correctly implement the spec and Google is abusing that by using a legal but illogical header. If Google doesn't say what they are doing with the data, then IE shouldn't provide it. Instead, Google says "I'm not telling you anything about my intent" and IE says "Good enough. The key's under the mat. Lock up when you're done." The whole system is trust based. Google doesn't promise anything and IE doesn't care. Google is being shady and Microsoft is being incompetent.
My biggest problem here is Microsoft releasing this now in a lengthy blog post and trying to tie it to the Safari dust up. They know that the blogs will not include their full release and will instead carry the headline like you see here. This is a PR move at least as dishonest as what Google appears to be doing with their P3P header.
My mind has been changed on the ethics of that and it was Peter Singer who convinced me of the fact.
You mean the ethicist who believes that parents should be able to retroactively abort their children?
The same! And don't forget his belief that not all bestiality is wrong. As long as the animal wasn't physically harmed and we are nice to it, what's the problem? Just like children, right?
I actually agree with the GP regarding how we treat animals in big agribusiness. If the feedlots and slaughterhouses were not hidden from the consumers, our meat consumption would be greatly reduced. However, I don't see vegetarianism as the answer - I raise my own animals as much as possible and try to avoid mass-market meat. After all, why draw the line at chickens? Aren't we practicing speciesism when we kill millions of bugs, reptiles, and rodents to protect our vegetable crops? And why draw the line at animals? Plants are clearly living. Why aren't they considered?
It appears there is a third option - Proview is now claiming that Apple's front company agreed that the trademark would not be used to compete against them and that, while the technology is clearly different, Apple's iPad is loosely competing against Proview's IPAD. Unfortunately, most of the recent details around this are found only on Chinese media sites or John Paczkowski's blog on AllThingsD. Perhaps we'll know a bit more in a few days. In particular, who is Huy Yuan and did he really represent the Chinese Proview, as Apple claims?
If you post a URL that doesn't even support your claim, you'll get modded up? Your link simply tells us that Apple says their front company bought the worldwide rights, which we already know they claim.
It seems there are two options here:
* Proview China is lying in a last-ditch effort to save their company
* Apple and/or their front company didn't do their homework
Nothing in your link sheds any light on the issue.
Absolutely, but Monsanto and their government enforcers have already ruled that non-GMO labels are pointless and not required. Further, they aren't even allowed in some cases.
Our son did so well on the math portion of his standardized test that the gifted teacher asked him to join their advanced math class the following year. He is a smart kid but would much rather do something with his hands than sit around doing math worksheets. After only a few weeks in the class, the teacher commented to us that our son is a lot like hers was and that she struggled with him for years. But once she got him diagnosed as ADHD and on medicine, the world became a much better place. She couldn't stop telling us how great it was. She was careful to avoid directly suggesting the same for us, but was very overt in her message. We now homeschool and our son is more than a grade level ahead in his math work, with no diagnosis or medication.
A variety of methods used to genetically modify organisms or influence their growth and development by means that are not possible under natural conditions or processes and are not considered compatible with organic production. Such methods include cell fusion, microencapsulation and macroencapsulation, and recombinant DNA technology (including gene deletion, gene doubling, introducing a foreign gene, and changing the position of genes when achieved by recombinant DNA technology). Such methods do not include the use of traditional breeding, conjugation, fermentation, hybridization, in vitro fertilization, or tissue culture.’’
Unfortunately, the "organic" label in no way guarantees that you aren't getting food contaminated by GMO products. With the US government supporting Monsanto's fight against GMO labeling and the on-going problem of GMOs corrupting non-GMO crops, despite their government certification it is nearly guaranteed that some GMO corn was present in the organic feed provided to the cows at the organic dairy.
As Curunir_wolf pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the USDA says:
A variety of methods used to genetically modify organisms or influence their growth and development by means that are not possible under natural conditions or processes and are not considered compatible with organic production. Such methods include cell fusion, microencapsulation and macroencapsulation, and recombinant DNA technology (including gene deletion, gene doubling, introducing a foreign gene, and changing the position of genes when achieved by recombinant DNA technology). Such methods do not include the use of traditional breeding, conjugation, fermentation, hybridization, in vitro fertilization, or tissue culture.’’
I've suffered from tinnitus as long as I can remember although I didn't know what it was until about 10 years ago. I'm in my mid-30s and find most tube TVs drive me crazy. This weekend I was at my parents' (who finally replaced their whine-generating large CRT television) and kept hearing a high-pitched sound. No one else heard it but I finally tracked it down to their new LCD television that was turned on but displaying a black screen because the cable box was off. The squeal from my laptop is one reason that I always have music playing at work.
As I pointed out in another post above, you will not find the strong opposition from open source groups. There are two main versions of this story floating around most of the IT rags today - they share the same first paragraphs (which mention the strong opposition in passing, as if it is a well-known fact) but differ in the shill quoted. One version, as linked to in the summary, quotes John Simpson from the astroturfing Consumer Watchdog and the other quotes Florian Mueller. A template news release with interchangeable shills as the quoted experts? Best news money can buy.
Seriously, guys, anyone that can provide some links that show "strong opposition from open source"?
I've yet to see it and I note that despite your original question sitting at a score of 5, no one has attempted to provide a serious answer.I doubt you'll find it anywhere but dishonest shills like Mueller or his ilk that post here.
Aside the shilling (and his schillings), what I fail to understand is how FM has something to do with Open Source. I may be worth whooshing...
Mueller was once a darling of the open source movement but then become a paid shill for Microsoft. He still pretends to be in support of open source and claims to be an expert in patent law. He maintains the FOSS Patents blog and gets himself quoted in industry rag stories about the Apple/Google fight on a regular basis. Shills like Bonch love to quote him.
Back to your original question, it might be useful to look at the summary a bit deeper. angry tapir references the earlier story submitted by Bonch, a well-established anti-Google and pro-Apple shill/troll, and mentions Consumer Watchdog by name. Consumer Watchdog is a well-funded astroturfing group associated with Grassroots Enterprise who offer services such as:
# Engaging them over time via a variety of online communication techniques, including, of course, email (***this is the step most people leave out, but it’s the most critical) # Monitor the online universe — news sites, blogs, the social media, etc. — to figure out how our client or its issues are being perceived, and actively shape that perception. # Create and execute online programs that drive stakeholders to join our client’s campaign (through paid advertising, buzz building, viral marketing and earned media) # Work with our 50-state field network to find “grasstops” influentials — individuals with unique relationships in key markets that we can leverage # Build in-depth behavioral profile of each stakeholder, and identify mavens (or Multipliers) in the mix # Spur stakeholders to take action we want, measure results in real real-time, and adjust the campaign as necessary
None of the links mention opposition by any specific open source groups. The primarily link to techworld.com quotes someone from, surprise, Consumer Watchdog. Or, if you don't like that article, you could try this one which is identical in the first few paragraphs but instead quotes Florian Mueller.
It has been interesting watching Bonch lately. He drops off the radar for a few days, then suddenly has the first post on numerous stories for a day or two. All of his first posts are modded +5 the instant the story hits. Any posts like these that point out his shilling and trolling are immediately modded -1 Troll. Now I can't turn away from any Apple or Google story until I find Bonch or his other accounts and see how they've been pumping the thread.
My only negative mod in six months or more was this recent post in a Bonch-submitted story.
I've now given the Times two page views to confirm that you're still wrong. Those pictures are indeed anti-SOPA, and are part of the news story that discusses both sides. We now have a reasonably neutral news story and an obviously one-sided opinion piece. You've still not delivered on the opposing side's opinion piece.
I've always had great vision, including night vision. A recent trip to the eye doctor (first one in at least 20 years) confirmed that my vision still scores at 20/20 or better. I found this hard to believe because my vision is noticeably worse than it was five or ten years ago, which makes me wonder how the world looks to people who live their whole life with bad vision. Also, curiously, I have blue eyes and have suffered with red eyes in every picture ever taken of me. Three of my kids have blue eyes and likewise always show up in pictures with demon eyes; however, even a normal lighted environment occasionally produces a silvery reflection in their eyes.
We use it and the biggest issue we see is an occasional delay of less than a minute for email delivery. Otherwise, performance and usability are acceptable given the trade-off of secured and controlled corporate data. Interestingly, the Android version on ICS seems to be better than the iOS version on iOS5.
Slashdot Mirror
For reference – "your morals do not line up with my morals" is not the same thing as "your morals don't line up with the rest of society".
Agreed. The original comment mentioned only ethics and I was lazy in including the word "morals" in mine.
You do not have a moral obligation to return a favour if someone does you one. You may be a nice person, and you may feel more inclined to be nice to people who are nice to you, but you certainly do not have a moral obligation to do so.
And I never said that you were obligated to do so. There are many times in life where I don't do something that I feel is the right thing to do; life is complex and requires many competing value judgments. Indeed, your morals can be such that you believe the world owes you and you owe it nothing. This is not an ethical outlook nor one conducive to a functioning culture, but certainly is valid morally speaking.
More so, I'd argue that people who have a sense of entitlement because they think they've done something nice for someone else have the bigger moral flaw. If you give something away for free, you have given it away for free, you have not made an agreement to receive future free shit from the other party – if you wanted that, you'd have made that agreement with them.
I might not agree that the flaw here is greater, but I concur 100% otherwise. Again, you seem stuck on the notion of obligation and expectations. If I do something for someone, it is because I wanted to do so. I do not expect anything in return. Of course, if they are able but never reciprocate, I am less included to continue doing favors. It really is no different than the basic notion of friendship - one-sided friendships usually are dysfunctional and short-lived.
So again, at least as far as I'm concerned, FOSS is about "hey, I made this cool thing, have it, because I'm nice", not "hey, I made half of this cool thing, because I wrote it I now have a sense of entitlement to your cool things too."
And this doesn't conflict at all with my position. The Golden Rule doesn't say that you should expect others to do unto you as you do until them - it says you should do until others as you'd have them do unto you. Nothing more and nothing less. If you take advantage of this cool thing and have the ability to somehow contribute back, you ought to do so. Failing to do so is not ethical, regardless of what psychopathic moral code you might carry.
To repeat from my previous post, the culture of FOSS requires a certain ratio of suppliers and consumers. If the Apples and Googles of the world take from the FOSS community but never give anything back, while making tons of money on the work of others, they will eventually destroy the community. On the other hand, if they return the favor (not even at the level that they could or at which they profited) they encourage the community to grow and prosper.
And like the GP, your ethics/morals are clearly out of sync with what society considers normal or expected. If someone gives you something at a free or reduced cost, they did you a favor. If you can do the same for them, or someone else, it is generally considered the appropriate thing to do. Of course there is no legal requirement that you be a nice person. Most governments provide you the freedom to be an asshole if you want. That doesn't make it the right thing to do.
If you aren't a skilled developer, you may have nothing to offer back to a FOSS project. Or, you may legitimately not have the time right now. That's okay. However, the whole notion of FOSS (and, by extension, civil society and culture) rely on the notion that the ratio of nice people to assholes is sufficient to continue forward.
I don't understand why this nonsense gets modded up. Apple is under no ethical obligation to contribute anything to open source. They are under a legal obligation to contribute to open source software in specific circumstances, such as in the case of distributing of modified GPL software. Its complete bullshit to expect any company or person to go above and beyond the legal obligations of using open source software, even if that software is helping them bring in heaps of cash.
Yes, you make it quite clear that you don't understand the concept of ethics or morals.
Most hunters eat their prey
[citation needed]
The accuracy of that statement varies greatly depending on where you are. In rural areas, the GP's statement is pretty spot on. Suburban and urban "hunters" who deer hunt for a head on the wall are much less likely to care about the meat. And don't lose sight (as most in this thread seem to have) of the fact that these weren't hunters - they were target shooters using live animals. Do not confuse them with hunters.
best tasting meat I ever ate
Objectively false. There's a reason they call game meat "gamey". Your experience may differ, obviously, but only because you've eaten either 1) game meat or 2) shit.
What an ignorant comment. I can immediately tell if the burger in my spaghetti sauce is deer, beef, or turkey but different flavor doesn't make one "objectively" better or worse. Many actually prefer the lower fat (and healthier) meat of game animals over corn-fed beef.
No. The browser is supposed to ignore the whole thing if it doesn't find anything it understands. Why MS doesn't make IE just go with the default of NO in those cases, I don't know.
Because their implementation of P3P is broken. Of course, P3P itself is a broken standard that was never finished and is horribly out of date.
Of course, why Google sends such a non-statement is questionable as well.
Because Google does not support the crap standard but some browsers still want it. They pass a P3P header to the browser. They don't provide any P3P-compliant statements, instead providing a link to why they don't support P3P.
You'd expect shady sites to "attack" a gentleman's agreement, not Google. If you think they're the same, would you be okay with hosting your mail on warez-email.com ? After all, they're both on the big bad internet.
So I guess you're saying that we should be upset with Microsoft for their piss poor implementation of P3P?
In other words, if your server delivers a garbage or blank P3P header, the browser assumes there are no privacy implications? Sounds like a hole in the standard to me, such headers should be ignored IMO.
And the standard agrees with you. Even Microsoft admits as much in their blog post:
The P3P specification (in an attempt to leave room for future advances in privacy policies) states that browsers should ignore any undefined policies they encounter.
What Google is doing certainly is outside the spirit of the P3P system. They clearly are doing it on purpose.
That said, P3P was an incomplete idea that has sat around a decade or so waiting to be finished. This issue has been documented and pretty well known for at least two years. It wouldn't be an issue if Microsoft correctly parsed the P3P header. Microsoft bringing this up now and trying to lay all the blame on Google is a calculated PR pile on.
Not even Microsoft supports your argument. From their blog post:
Technically, Google utilizes a nuance in the P3P specification that has the effect of bypassing user preferences about cookies. The P3P specification (in an attempt to leave room for future advances in privacy policies) states that browsers should ignore any undefined policies they encounter.
Rather than ignoring it, IE is assuming that Google told them something positive.
From my reading of Microsoft's long blog post, Google didn't violate the spec. IE does not correctly implement the spec and Google is abusing that by using a legal but illogical header. If Google doesn't say what they are doing with the data, then IE shouldn't provide it. Instead, Google says "I'm not telling you anything about my intent" and IE says "Good enough. The key's under the mat. Lock up when you're done." The whole system is trust based. Google doesn't promise anything and IE doesn't care. Google is being shady and Microsoft is being incompetent.
My biggest problem here is Microsoft releasing this now in a lengthy blog post and trying to tie it to the Safari dust up. They know that the blogs will not include their full release and will instead carry the headline like you see here. This is a PR move at least as dishonest as what Google appears to be doing with their P3P header.
My mind has been changed on the ethics of that and it was Peter Singer who convinced me of the fact.
You mean the ethicist who believes that parents should be able to retroactively abort their children?
The same! And don't forget his belief that not all bestiality is wrong. As long as the animal wasn't physically harmed and we are nice to it, what's the problem? Just like children, right?
I actually agree with the GP regarding how we treat animals in big agribusiness. If the feedlots and slaughterhouses were not hidden from the consumers, our meat consumption would be greatly reduced. However, I don't see vegetarianism as the answer - I raise my own animals as much as possible and try to avoid mass-market meat. After all, why draw the line at chickens? Aren't we practicing speciesism when we kill millions of bugs, reptiles, and rodents to protect our vegetable crops? And why draw the line at animals? Plants are clearly living. Why aren't they considered?
It appears there is a third option - Proview is now claiming that Apple's front company agreed that the trademark would not be used to compete against them and that, while the technology is clearly different, Apple's iPad is loosely competing against Proview's IPAD. Unfortunately, most of the recent details around this are found only on Chinese media sites or John Paczkowski's blog on AllThingsD. Perhaps we'll know a bit more in a few days. In particular, who is Huy Yuan and did he really represent the Chinese Proview, as Apple claims?
If you post a URL that doesn't even support your claim, you'll get modded up? Your link simply tells us that Apple says their front company bought the worldwide rights, which we already know they claim.
It seems there are two options here:
* Proview China is lying in a last-ditch effort to save their company
* Apple and/or their front company didn't do their homework
Nothing in your link sheds any light on the issue.
Absolutely, but Monsanto and their government enforcers have already ruled that non-GMO labels are pointless and not required. Further, they aren't even allowed in some cases.
Our son did so well on the math portion of his standardized test that the gifted teacher asked him to join their advanced math class the following year. He is a smart kid but would much rather do something with his hands than sit around doing math worksheets. After only a few weeks in the class, the teacher commented to us that our son is a lot like hers was and that she struggled with him for years. But once she got him diagnosed as ADHD and on medicine, the world became a much better place. She couldn't stop telling us how great it was. She was careful to avoid directly suggesting the same for us, but was very overt in her message. We now homeschool and our son is more than a grade level ahead in his math work, with no diagnosis or medication.
How about a quote from the USDA?
A variety of methods used to genetically modify organisms or influence their growth and development by means that are not possible under natural conditions or processes and are not considered compatible with organic production. Such methods include cell fusion, microencapsulation and macroencapsulation, and recombinant DNA technology (including gene deletion, gene doubling, introducing a foreign gene, and changing the position of genes when achieved by recombinant DNA technology). Such methods do not include the use of traditional breeding, conjugation, fermentation, hybridization, in vitro fertilization, or tissue culture.’’
Unfortunately, the "organic" label in no way guarantees that you aren't getting food contaminated by GMO products. With the US government supporting Monsanto's fight against GMO labeling and the on-going problem of GMOs corrupting non-GMO crops, despite their government certification it is nearly guaranteed that some GMO corn was present in the organic feed provided to the cows at the organic dairy.
As Curunir_wolf pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the USDA says:
A variety of methods used to genetically modify organisms or influence their growth and development by means that are not possible under natural conditions or processes and are not considered compatible with organic production. Such methods include cell fusion, microencapsulation and macroencapsulation, and recombinant DNA technology (including gene deletion, gene doubling, introducing a foreign gene, and changing the position of genes when achieved by recombinant DNA technology). Such methods do not include the use of traditional breeding, conjugation, fermentation, hybridization, in vitro fertilization, or tissue culture.’’
That seems pretty damn clear to me.
I've suffered from tinnitus as long as I can remember although I didn't know what it was until about 10 years ago. I'm in my mid-30s and find most tube TVs drive me crazy. This weekend I was at my parents' (who finally replaced their whine-generating large CRT television) and kept hearing a high-pitched sound. No one else heard it but I finally tracked it down to their new LCD television that was turned on but displaying a black screen because the cable box was off. The squeal from my laptop is one reason that I always have music playing at work.
As I pointed out in another post above, you will not find the strong opposition from open source groups. There are two main versions of this story floating around most of the IT rags today - they share the same first paragraphs (which mention the strong opposition in passing, as if it is a well-known fact) but differ in the shill quoted. One version, as linked to in the summary, quotes John Simpson from the astroturfing Consumer Watchdog and the other quotes Florian Mueller. A template news release with interchangeable shills as the quoted experts? Best news money can buy.
Seriously, guys, anyone that can provide some links that show "strong opposition from open source"?
I've yet to see it and I note that despite your original question sitting at a score of 5, no one has attempted to provide a serious answer.I doubt you'll find it anywhere but dishonest shills like Mueller or his ilk that post here.
Aside the shilling (and his schillings), what I fail to understand is how FM has something to do with Open Source. I may be worth whooshing...
Mueller was once a darling of the open source movement but then become a paid shill for Microsoft. He still pretends to be in support of open source and claims to be an expert in patent law. He maintains the FOSS Patents blog and gets himself quoted in industry rag stories about the Apple/Google fight on a regular basis. Shills like Bonch love to quote him.
Back to your original question, it might be useful to look at the summary a bit deeper. angry tapir references the earlier story submitted by Bonch, a well-established anti-Google and pro-Apple shill/troll, and mentions Consumer Watchdog by name. Consumer Watchdog is a well-funded astroturfing group associated with Grassroots Enterprise who offer services such as:
# Engaging them over time via a variety of online communication techniques, including, of course, email (***this is the step most people leave out, but it’s the most critical)
# Monitor the online universe — news sites, blogs, the social media, etc. — to figure out how our client or its issues are being perceived, and actively shape that perception.
# Create and execute online programs that drive stakeholders to join our client’s campaign (through paid advertising, buzz building, viral marketing and earned media)
# Work with our 50-state field network to find “grasstops” influentials — individuals with unique relationships in key markets that we can leverage
# Build in-depth behavioral profile of each stakeholder, and identify mavens (or Multipliers) in the mix
# Spur stakeholders to take action we want, measure results in real real-time, and adjust the campaign as necessary
None of the links mention opposition by any specific open source groups. The primarily link to techworld.com quotes someone from, surprise, Consumer Watchdog. Or, if you don't like that article, you could try this one which is identical in the first few paragraphs but instead quotes Florian Mueller.
It has been interesting watching Bonch lately. He drops off the radar for a few days, then suddenly has the first post on numerous stories for a day or two. All of his first posts are modded +5 the instant the story hits. Any posts like these that point out his shilling and trolling are immediately modded -1 Troll. Now I can't turn away from any Apple or Google story until I find Bonch or his other accounts and see how they've been pumping the thread.
My only negative mod in six months or more was this recent post in a Bonch-submitted story.
I've now given the Times two page views to confirm that you're still wrong. Those pictures are indeed anti-SOPA, and are part of the news story that discusses both sides. We now have a reasonably neutral news story and an obviously one-sided opinion piece. You've still not delivered on the opposing side's opinion piece.
You linked to a NY Times article discussing SOPA. The GP asked for opinion pieces from people opposed to SOPA. Care to try again?
I've always had great vision, including night vision. A recent trip to the eye doctor (first one in at least 20 years) confirmed that my vision still scores at 20/20 or better. I found this hard to believe because my vision is noticeably worse than it was five or ten years ago, which makes me wonder how the world looks to people who live their whole life with bad vision. Also, curiously, I have blue eyes and have suffered with red eyes in every picture ever taken of me. Three of my kids have blue eyes and likewise always show up in pictures with demon eyes; however, even a normal lighted environment occasionally produces a silvery reflection in their eyes.
We use it and the biggest issue we see is an occasional delay of less than a minute for email delivery. Otherwise, performance and usability are acceptable given the trade-off of secured and controlled corporate data. Interestingly, the Android version on ICS seems to be better than the iOS version on iOS5.