I understand they were not perfect and there is a lot of self flagellation going on. But the fact is: the disaster was unbelievably bad, the consequences were moderate. Its hard to look on the bright side, but they did a pretty good job in a god awful situation. Of course not all expensive safety measures were implemented. Of course people were arrogant after decades of success. These plants were run by real people with normal human flaws.
The opposite of perfection is not total incompetence. They did pretty good, made some serious mistakes and did a good job mitigating them.
I've also read that an area of some hundred square miles may remain uninhabitable for decades if not centuries.
Obviously I can't say anything about what happened to workers, but I doubt it. On the other hand we know that isn't true, we can test the radiation levels. Unless you go very close to the reactor it is safe now.
In all fairness the reason behind Gnome 3 was a push towards growing beyond 2% (and I don't even think its 2%). They did care, and they did try. And Metro might create an opening on the low end for Linux.
Metro makes sense financially. If it works it buys Microsoft a generation of desktop domination. If it fails, then most likely Microsoft couldn't have done anything to save consumer, falls back and spends the 2020s defending enterprise.
They don't get to decide what.0 means. The terms for that 4RC1. Besides when distributions started to go with it, they should have stepped up to discourage it.
Even KDE people admit they handled that terribly. Huge mistake, but water under the bridge.
I think one of the things that often gets forgotten was that Gnome 3 ended up in a war with Canonical in March 2011. Canonical represented somewhere between 50-80% of the user base. Once Canonical came to believe that the Gnome foundation simply would not listen to their point of view and their only alternative was to fork things went downhill badly. I think its time for Gnome to admit they lost this war.
Canonical instead of pushing the advantages of Gnome 3 focused heavily on the minus. Instead of easing their customer base into Gnome 3 they moved them away from it towards their Unity / Wayland vision. Canonical could have helped to soften some of the rough edges and at the same time Gnome thought deeply about consistency and functionality issues which have haunted Canonical.
The most popular Gnome desktop is now Cinnamon which is a fork. The second most popular is Mate which is a rejection of Gnome 3 entirely. KDE developers consider Gnome to have bullied and lied to them about cooperation so Gnome is likely to see less cooperation.
There are some brilliant aspects of Gnome 3. And I could see it evolving into truly the best desktop OS around. But it won't have the time or support to do that, in the current state of alienation. They have minor technical problems but large political problems. It is time to address the politics and compromise a bit to get back to a situation where they aren't decaying rapidly.
I think a response to losing some key mobile and tablet groups in particular Nextel to KDE. Nextel had some genuine serious complaints with GTK2 / Gnome 2 that caused them to buy QT and bring out MeeGo's Swipe (which is a brilliant UI for a phone, especially for multitasking BTW).
And also Gnome 3 while having some very rough edges, is also in some ways brilliant. I agree with the assessment that the Canonical / Gnome divorce was one of those messy divorces. Canonical could have tamed some of Gnome's absolutist impulses and Gnome could have given Canonical an actually integrated system.
Maybe we're not talking about the same Fukashima but I distinctly recall pretty much total confusion and paralysis by the Japanese government and TEPCO.
When exactly was this paralysis? Though out the whole thing the Japanese government and TEPCO were managing the reactor everyday. There was a lot of time they didn't know about what was happening exactly or how to handle it. But more or less they had very effective teams working through how to handle a truly tragic situation effectively. This was the first time humanity ever faced this situation and they did rather well, for a first time.
It was clear they did not have a good handle on the situation.
They had as good a handle as could be expected on a situation that no one had ever encountered before where the monitoring and safety systems failed.
They clearly lied, obfuscated and just refused to talk at times.
People wanted more definite answers than they had.
THAT is what was so scary. Nobody believed what the government was saying. It was extraordinarily hard to figure out exactly what was going on. Waving Geiger counters around isn't the best way to determine health risks but that is exactly what the general public was forced to do given the poor official response. This went on for months. So, I'm supposed to believe them now?
Why not? In retrospect I think they were mostly as honest as they could be. A bit overly optimistic and a bit concerned in trying to reduce panic. But I don't see widespread deception. And the panic is over.
Note the similarities between Chernoble and Fukashima. Both governments caught unawares. Both governments go into minimize mode. The real situation turns out to be, in fact, pretty bad.
Wait a minute. In Russia they deny it all together and have people (like my wife) out in streets getting radioactive rain. Nothing like that happened in Japan.
Define worse. The loss of control of the fissionable material and things like power failures and flooding at the time they were working to get them under control.
I think it makes a rather huge difference. Things went far worse at Fukushima than they did at Chernobyl. However the government was able to evacuate effectively, maintain health levels, control the situation.... I'd say the lessen is more or less the opposite.
You seriously do NOT know what a FRAND patent is, and that it can NOT be used to sue someone.
Of course it can. FRAND guarantees someone the right to use a patent under Fair Reasonable And Non-Dicriminatory terms it doesn't give them blanket terms. Refuse to meet Fair Reasonable And Non-Dicriminatory terms you can get sued
That is not what is happening to Motorola and Samsung here. In the case of Motorola Apple is trying to get around paying the fees that others had to pay for the FRAND rights because it was a percentage and their phone more expensive. In the case of Samsung, Samsung is arguing those patents are part of broad cross licensing agreements.
If someone sells a $1000 laptop with a cell phone in it, should Motorola get a full percentage of that, too? One would hope the contract language would specify this, but doesn't sound like it.
Motorola's position and I believe they are right is that the The FRAND license would entitle Apple to the same terms as anyone else selling a $1000 laptop with a phone in it gets. Which is no one and so Motorola can charge what they want (up to 2.5% of $1000). Apple's position is that Motorola must patent at 2.5% of the $40 phone and the fact that the phone is only sold conjoined with a laptop is irrelevant.
IMHO FRAND is not quite a broad as Apple thinks it is.
Because doesn't think about market share the way Microsoft does. Winning huge number of customers because they are going for the cheap alternative rather than because they want the Apple alternative and are willing to pay extra harms their brand. It creates people who bought Apple "for the wrong reasons" and starts to divide the Apple community, which at least now is very unified in what they want.
How is Google an arch enemy of Oracle? Microsoft is far more of a threat to Oracle's business than Google. \And Adobe, if anything I'd say Apple is the bigger threat to Adobe than anyone else on your list.
I'm of the opinion that cheerleading for Motorola is a bit hypocritical. You are against "software" patents (which I am) or you are not, software patents aren't suddenly good things because it is used against a company that you hate.
There is nothing hypocritical about taking multiple factors into account in your moral judgements. You may generally be opposed to shooting strangers but think that such things are acceptable in war or in defense of your home. I'm normally against locking people in cages, but totally in favor of it when it comes to most murderers.
Life is a series of situations and what is acceptable in some situations is not in others. In this case one of the main reasons people hate Apple is because of their use of software patents. Having a policy where a company that attempts to use software patents finds itself suffering a PR hit and paying out much more heavily than they collect is not a bad outcome.
Slashdot Mirror
How did people get evacuated so quickly? You had 4 nuclear reactors explode with 0 deaths. You tell me how that happened?
I understand they were not perfect and there is a lot of self flagellation going on. But the fact is: the disaster was unbelievably bad, the consequences were moderate. Its hard to look on the bright side, but they did a pretty good job in a god awful situation. Of course not all expensive safety measures were implemented. Of course people were arrogant after decades of success. These plants were run by real people with normal human flaws.
The opposite of perfection is not total incompetence. They did pretty good, made some serious mistakes and did a good job mitigating them.
I'm saying the patent war. I think the copying is a bit more complex than that. There are certainly features of Android not present in iOS.
I've also read that an area of some hundred square miles may remain uninhabitable for decades if not centuries.
Obviously I can't say anything about what happened to workers, but I doubt it. On the other hand we know that isn't true, we can test the radiation levels. Unless you go very close to the reactor it is safe now.
In all fairness the reason behind Gnome 3 was a push towards growing beyond 2% (and I don't even think its 2%). They did care, and they did try. And Metro might create an opening on the low end for Linux.
Metro makes sense financially. If it works it buys Microsoft a generation of desktop domination. If it fails, then most likely Microsoft couldn't have done anything to save consumer, falls back and spends the 2020s defending enterprise.
Gnome is in a different position.
Given that Linux now controls over 50% of the smart phone market, I'd say it is realized.
And Apple heavily documents their customizations. Gnome doesn't.
They don't get to decide what .0 means. The terms for that 4RC1. Besides when distributions started to go with it, they should have stepped up to discourage it.
Even KDE people admit they handled that terribly. Huge mistake, but water under the bridge.
Sure it does. KDE (which is really quite good). Cinnamon (a fork of Gnome 3), Mate (Gnome 2) and possibly XFCE or LXDE.
I think one of the things that often gets forgotten was that Gnome 3 ended up in a war with Canonical in March 2011. Canonical represented somewhere between 50-80% of the user base. Once Canonical came to believe that the Gnome foundation simply would not listen to their point of view and their only alternative was to fork things went downhill badly. I think its time for Gnome to admit they lost this war.
Canonical instead of pushing the advantages of Gnome 3 focused heavily on the minus. Instead of easing their customer base into Gnome 3 they moved them away from it towards their Unity / Wayland vision. Canonical could have helped to soften some of the rough edges and at the same time Gnome thought deeply about consistency and functionality issues which have haunted Canonical.
The most popular Gnome desktop is now Cinnamon which is a fork. The second most popular is Mate which is a rejection of Gnome 3 entirely. KDE developers consider Gnome to have bullied and lied to them about cooperation so Gnome is likely to see less cooperation.
There are some brilliant aspects of Gnome 3. And I could see it evolving into truly the best desktop OS around. But it won't have the time or support to do that, in the current state of alienation. They have minor technical problems but large political problems. It is time to address the politics and compromise a bit to get back to a situation where they aren't decaying rapidly.
I have no idea who it's for?
I think a response to losing some key mobile and tablet groups in particular Nextel to KDE. Nextel had some genuine serious complaints with GTK2 / Gnome 2 that caused them to buy QT and bring out MeeGo's Swipe (which is a brilliant UI for a phone, especially for multitasking BTW).
And also Gnome 3 while having some very rough edges, is also in some ways brilliant. I agree with the assessment that the Canonical / Gnome divorce was one of those messy divorces. Canonical could have tamed some of Gnome's absolutist impulses and Gnome could have given Canonical an actually integrated system.
Maybe we're not talking about the same Fukashima but I distinctly recall pretty much total confusion and paralysis by the Japanese government and TEPCO.
When exactly was this paralysis? Though out the whole thing the Japanese government and TEPCO were managing the reactor everyday. There was a lot of time they didn't know about what was happening exactly or how to handle it. But more or less they had very effective teams working through how to handle a truly tragic situation effectively. This was the first time humanity ever faced this situation and they did rather well, for a first time.
It was clear they did not have a good handle on the situation.
They had as good a handle as could be expected on a situation that no one had ever encountered before where the monitoring and safety systems failed.
They clearly lied, obfuscated and just refused to talk at times.
People wanted more definite answers than they had.
THAT is what was so scary. Nobody believed what the government was saying. It was extraordinarily hard to figure out exactly what was going on. Waving Geiger counters around isn't the best way to determine health risks but that is exactly what the general public was forced to do given the poor official response. This went on for months. So, I'm supposed to believe them now?
Why not? In retrospect I think they were mostly as honest as they could be. A bit overly optimistic and a bit concerned in trying to reduce panic. But I don't see widespread deception. And the panic is over.
Note the similarities between Chernoble and Fukashima. Both governments caught unawares. Both governments go into minimize mode. The real situation turns out to be, in fact, pretty bad.
Wait a minute. In Russia they deny it all together and have people (like my wife) out in streets getting radioactive rain. Nothing like that happened in Japan.
No they didn't. The Japanese handled a worse objective situation. On the other hand, yes the fuel was exposed.
Exactly! Thank you.
Define worse. The loss of control of the fissionable material and things like power failures and flooding at the time they were working to get them under control.
What happened after is proof of my point above.
I think it makes a rather huge difference. Things went far worse at Fukushima than they did at Chernobyl. However the government was able to evacuate effectively, maintain health levels, control the situation.... I'd say the lessen is more or less the opposite.
You seriously do NOT know what a FRAND patent is, and that it can NOT be used to sue someone.
Of course it can. FRAND guarantees someone the right to use a patent under Fair Reasonable And Non-Dicriminatory terms it doesn't give them blanket terms. Refuse to meet Fair Reasonable And Non-Dicriminatory terms you can get sued
That is not what is happening to Motorola and Samsung here. In the case of Motorola Apple is trying to get around paying the fees that others had to pay for the FRAND rights because it was a percentage and their phone more expensive. In the case of Samsung, Samsung is arguing those patents are part of broad cross licensing agreements.
If someone sells a $1000 laptop with a cell phone in it, should Motorola get a full percentage of that, too?
One would hope the contract language would specify this, but doesn't sound like it.
Motorola's position and I believe they are right is that the The FRAND license would entitle Apple to the same terms as anyone else selling a $1000 laptop with a phone in it gets. Which is no one and so Motorola can charge what they want (up to 2.5% of $1000). Apple's position is that Motorola must patent at 2.5% of the $40 phone and the fact that the phone is only sold conjoined with a laptop is irrelevant.
IMHO FRAND is not quite a broad as Apple thinks it is.
Because doesn't think about market share the way Microsoft does. Winning huge number of customers because they are going for the cheap alternative rather than because they want the Apple alternative and are willing to pay extra harms their brand. It creates people who bought Apple "for the wrong reasons" and starts to divide the Apple community, which at least now is very unified in what they want.
How is Google an arch enemy of Oracle? Microsoft is far more of a threat to Oracle's business than Google.
\And Adobe, if anything I'd say Apple is the bigger threat to Adobe than anyone else on your list.
They are also vulnerable on the FRAND stuff. Apple's defense there, is they want protections over and above the law.
Yes but prior to Apple's involvement the tradition was a lot of cross licensing agreements. I like Apple, but they started this war.
I'm of the opinion that cheerleading for Motorola is a bit hypocritical. You are against "software" patents (which I am) or you are not, software patents aren't suddenly good things because it is used against a company that you hate.
There is nothing hypocritical about taking multiple factors into account in your moral judgements. You may generally be opposed to shooting strangers but think that such things are acceptable in war or in defense of your home. I'm normally against locking people in cages, but totally in favor of it when it comes to most murderers.
Life is a series of situations and what is acceptable in some situations is not in others. In this case one of the main reasons people hate Apple is because of their use of software patents. Having a policy where a company that attempts to use software patents finds itself suffering a PR hit and paying out much more heavily than they collect is not a bad outcome.