I noticed the same thing, especially being the developer with the second most seniority. The most senior developer never showed up, and I showed up about once a month. The meetings were worthless and a waste of time, which those of us who worked on the accounts with the most impact realized. I could spend 15 minutes talking about stupid crap, or fixing important crap that executives had visibility into. Which one made my job less painful?
You should probably be fired. Even if you're a competent worker, you're clearly not a team player and don't value informing others what is going on or care to learn what others are doing. Why would you spend 15 minutes talking about stupid crap? You seem to have missed the point entirely. If you don't have anything to say, say what you're working on then shut up and move on to the next person. Hell we do a stand up every day with between 15 and 70 people and the whole meeting almost never takes 15 minutes, but it certainly can be valuable. It sure beats traditional meetings.
Oh and the more senior engineer, also probably should be fired. If you can't show up on time and show enough respect for your colleagues to listen to what they're working on in case it effects what you're working on, well you're a dinosaur, and don't really fit into a collaborative or agile workplace which, frankly, is the winning model right now.
Boycotting apple is a good idea, yes everyone is using the same factories but it is unrealistic to boycott everyone at the same time. So why not pick the bully in the group and lay him out?
Because Apple is the only one actually doing anything to improve human rights among their suppliers. Other companies are bigger or just as big and have just as much visibility (e.g. Sony, Nintendo, MS) and those companies don't perform audits or if they do they don't publish them. They don't have an independent third party perform audits. They don't fire any companies over violations. They don't require changes. So pick on Apple because they were open and trying to make a difference, oh yeah that's a great way to motivate change, just not in the direction you seem to think. That is, unless you think the problem is hearing about human rights problems instead of the violations themelves.
Wow, you Apple fanatics sure know how to circle the wagons! The "But every other tech company does it!" defense doesn't resonate particularly well coming from a company whose corporate slogan tells us to "Think different".
I'm not an "Apple fanatic" being more than a little grumpy about several things they've done, but on this issue, Slashdot's consensus seems to be completely counterproductive. Can you provide a link to the human rights charter and yearly audits published by Sony? Can you tell me that HP has stopped doing business with one supplier over human rights violations? Can you show me where Nintendo or MS has forced a company to pay for a child laborer's living and schooling after being caught with children working in their plants? Can you show me any of these things from ANY major electronics manufacturer?
As far as I can tell Apple is the only company at all doing ANYTHING! You know when these Apple slave labor articles started? A couple years after Apple started publishing their audits openly and telling people the companies they fined, fired, or required changes at. Apple's audits were the source material for sensationalist crap by lazy, lazy pseudo-journalists. Now they are paying the price and every other company is learning a valuable lesson, don't do anything about human rights and certainly don't try to be open about it. Sweep it under the rug. Congratulations on motivating more suffering.
and the EULA for the authoring tool forces you to sell only via the Apple Store.
True, but we've seen this scene play out before. Apple's tool is only for getting content to sell more iPads, but as soon as there is a serious market, Adobe or someone else will be making tools that will make epub books specifically tailored for the iPad and for the leading Android and the Kindle. While I wish Apple would go with tools that publish to open standards right away I also see they are a business and want to encourage iPad sales, not just tablet sales in general. Now that we have a slick competitor in the authoring space though we should see competition heat up. That is good for everyone.
Talk about vendor lock-in.
Vendor lock in usually refers to paid products. We all expect vendor lock in when we are getting it for free. Is Grooveshark "vendor lock-in" because you can only listen to their music from their website? iBook author is FREE as a way of promoting Apple's service and devices. If they were selling it you might have room for complaint.
And good luck trying to sell your book at the end of the year back to the Apple Store...
With the economy of scale of textbooks, no one should ever have to sell one back. They should be permanent reference materials for the rest of your life. Hell, for a pittance compared to other spending the US or EU could easily fund the creation of hundred of top quality textbooks a year and give them away to the citizenry. That would be a reasonable investment in our future, certainly more so than most of the pork.
Umm, I've certainly worked on projects that include Webkit, Webkit2, and CUPS which are of course large projects used by many and where Apple established the community of contributors/collaborators.
This seems misleading. CUPS had an established community long before Apple bought it..
True enough, but it was also largely developed by one person, Michael Sweet. Apple helped to bring other contributors on board and get buy in from a lot more companies. Still, you have a point, it as probably not the best example.
Webkit is based off of KDE's ( yes, from the Linux world) Konqueror browser according to Wikipedia....
Webkit was based off of KHTML, which was the engine in Konqueror. At the time, however, only the KDE team worked on it and even Linux developers of note had trouble getting patches in. Apple took all their code, forked it, and contributed a metric crapton of work to make it what we think of today. They also built a series of open collaborations with Google, Nokia, and several other players to make it a project where more than one team could effectively make contributions.
I do however remember reports of the arm twisting done to get Apple to live up to the spirit and letter of the open source licenses.
You were suckered into believing lies and exaggerations. CUPS for example: Apple bought the company and has all the rights to the code. They can close source it anytime they want, but they don't. Most of the major underpinnings of OS X are based on BSD and Apple can close them anytime it wants, but it doesn't.
With the KHTML thing, Apple contributed all their code back at once without copying all the version control messages they used internally (although it was documented code). The KHTML team looked at all the work and were elated by the size of the contribution, but worried about how they would merge it back into Konqueror, given that some of the design choices were not the direction they wanted to go. So they contacted the devs at Apple who sent them all the version control information, access to a mirror of Apple's version control repository, and answered questions about what components did what and how they could chunk up the parts they wanted. You know, they acted like most devs you meet and were good OSS players that want to help out others.
Now if you were on the KHTML forums at the time you saw this saga unfold. If, however, you were just following the news posted here at Slashdot, what you saw was one person from the forums who was not even a contributor complaining loudly and to anyone who would listen about how evil Apple was for "stealing" the code and intentionally trying to delay contributing back (they waited until after their surprise announcement of Safari) and how they intentionally made the code they distributed unreadable. It was complete bullshit, but that is the only thing anyone around here seems to remember because so many people here want to hate Apple and want justification for their feelings, they they don't look into the truth and remember only the bits that confirm their bias.
to me, this is very misleading. "a bunch of core system components" -- except for, you know, little stuff like network drivers, graphics drivers, etc.
I'm not sure how it is misleading to say "here is the source for a bunch of stuff". He didn't say it was the source for all of it, just a bunch of it, as a demonstration that OS X is pretty much the opposite of "locked down" in that much of it is not only easy to tinker with but a lot of the source code is available. OS X is certainly not an OSS project, but neither is it "locked down" by any means.
As for drivers, I thought Apple relies upon hardware suppliers for most of them, the same as Windows and Linux distros that care more about performance than ideology.
as anyone who has actually tried to build that pile of ass knows, the apple 'open source' project is complete horse shit. they use an incredibly obfuscated build system that makes it impossible for anyone except Apple to actually compile their projects.
Umm, I've certainly worked on projects that include Webkit, Webkit2, and CUPS which are of course large projects used by many and where Apple established the community of contributors/collaborators. I've never had nor heard of anyone with real problems using Apple's contributions. Apple sometimes doesn't spend time making things nice for the community and things are poorly documented etc., but usually an e-mail to the Apple devs finds them very responsive and willing to help OSS projects reusing the code. That's why Apple open sources code in the first place, to get more eyes on it, more dev work, and get technologies more widely adopted (all of which benefits Apple as much as anyone).
So then...there is the dilema. Whose moral compass do you step on? Those against homosexuality, or those for it?
There is no dilemma because the people opposing gay marriage and the people in favor of allowing it both claim to be in favor of freedom. Freedom is allowing it and letting every individual decide. If one group thinks people should not do something and another thinks they should, freedom is letting each person choose. And that is why Ron Paul is a hypocrite. He talks about freedom but he really is just venue shopping for a way to force his personal beliefs on others and take freedom away from the individual.
2. "Many members feel that they have a moral imperative to attempt to push their moral agenda on people who have nothing to do with them"
Democrats do this also with issues like affirmative action and gay marriage.
Generally arguing politics on Slashdot is the blind screaming at the deaf. Still, this point deserves to be addressed. Preventing discrimination based on gender is not forcing morals on anyone. On the topic of gay marriage it is ensuring individual liberty. Allowing each individual to choose for themselves is not pushing a moral agenda on others. It is giving each individual the freedom to choose. Now if there were a law trying to force people to marry those of the same sex, you might have a point.
...I'm not against gay marriage but it is a moral issue for many people.
Yes, it is a moral issue. The issue is some people want to force their morals on others with the force of law and prevent individuals from making their own choices. Presenting the concept of allowing individuals to choose for themselves as an example of Democrats "do this also" when "do this" was previously described as "push their moral agenda on people" just shows how easy it is to buy into the fiery but empty rhetoric spewed forth by politicians.
Gay marriage is not an issue of Democrats pushing their morals on others. It is an issue of personal freedom and the government not promoting any specific religion. Marriage started out as a legal contract and then religions latched onto it. If the government wants to use marriage as a legal contract and write laws about it, they should do so in a way that does not discriminate between different religions or genders as is required by the first amendment. If Ron Paul and his ilk actually gave a damn about freedom they'd have exactly the opposite position on this topic.
2. "Many members feel that they have a moral imperative to attempt to push their moral agenda on people who have nothing to do with them"
Democrats do this also with issues like affirmative action and gay marriage.
Generally arguing politics on Slashdot is the blind screaming at the deaf. Still, this point deserves to be addressed. Preventing discrimination based on gender is not forcing morals on anyone. On the topic of gay marriage it is ensuring individual liberty. Allowing each individual to choose for themselves is not pushing a moral agenda on others. It is giving each individual the freedom to choose. Now if there were a law trying to force people to marry those of the same sex, you might have a point.
Seconded. If you're looking for something really, really simple and easy to use for people that are not technically expert and you don't mind shelling out for an old Mac Mini and $35 for the software; this is a really solid choice. From a usability point of view it simply blows everything else out of the water.
It depends on what it is that you are saying Google has a monopoly in. Their search market share is about 65%. I would say it isn't a monopoly because there are basically no barriers to entry for a new competitor.
I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding why we have antitrust law. It is not about insuring other companies can compete in a market and destroy the monopoly. It is about making sure the monopoly does not grow to influence other markets and damage commerce in general. If the point was to prevent monopolies we'd make monopolies illegal.
Regardless of what barriers to entry there are, the question at hand is if Google has enough influence in a given market, that they have to obey specific laws with regard to how they tie other products and services to the aforementioned market.
If you define their business as advertising, then it might be a different story. I have no idea what their market share is in online advertising.
The law applies to all markets Google is playing in, so both search and advertising markets. For example, it would not be at all strange for the courts to look at the mobile phone advertising market, where Google has ~98% share and then see what other products Google is tying to mobile advertising. If Google did something like charge advertisers twice as much for ads on non-Android phones, Google would have a big antitrust problem. So far, however, I haven't seen any really glaring abuse (although I also have not really researched it).
No, you can't "define" markets by choosing arbitrary subsets, like "search engine providers with 'oogle' in their name, or Application search providers for mobile computers with an 'apple shaped' logo on them. The entire market is the entire market.
You're an idiot. You have to define what the "entire market" is in order to meaningfully discuss or evaluate it.
Last I heard, Google had less than 65% market share. Not very dominant if you ask me.
65% is fairly close, but then you have to specify a market to have a share of it, and a lot of antitrust law deals with defining the relevant markets. Take a subset of customers, like mobile phone users, then subtract out all of the services that don't work for mobile users and does Google have more than 70% of the remaining share? Is that influencing other markets where they have bundled a service with their products? Then again, you have to also remove non-relavent shares of the market, where they are not bundling, like users of search that use the search on their browser but are not directed to Google's bundled services.
It is certainly an area of concern for them these days and they may well be in violation of the law, but they have a lot better numbers on it than we do.
How is Google using search to promote their other properties any different from FOX airing ads for upcoming shows during a football game? If they didn't have any real competition, I could understand it, but the search market has lots of competitors.
If you have overwhelming dominance in one area, it is illegal to leverage that dominance to gain in other markets. It is legal to bundle shampoo and conditioner and sell them as a package right up until you gain dominance (guidance is 70%) of either the shampoo or conditioner market. As far as I know, no one has alleged Fox has 70% market share of, well any market. Google, on the other hand is estimated to have reached this dominance in several markets including mobile advertising where some put their market share as high as 98%. Bundling their other services then becomes a question for the courts.
All that said, the summary for this article was a bit off in that revamping their main search page does not seem to have bundled any more or fewer services with their search.
Solar panels absorb sun rays that would normally heat the ground. If we used solar panels on a large scale, we would drastically change the environment.
You know the energy does not disappear right? It is converted into electricity which powers heaters and appliances that in turn give off heat. Large scale electrical could change some regional climate, but it is unlikely to have much effect on a large scale, especially given the amounts we need/use and can capture in an area.
Lie: The Republican proposal guaranteed a RULING up or down within 90 days, but did not guarantee approval.
True enough, it just forces a decision on the proposal in a very short timeframe and before the EPA study of probable effects will be finished.
the oil companies can build a pipeline from Alaska
Lie: The Northern end of the pipeline is in Canada.
Umm, I guess you're right it is from Alberta not Alaska, although that seems worse in my opinion not better. We're now risking our protected wildlife area in order to process foreign oil, not even Alaskan?
to the Gulf
Half-lie: The pipeline goes to endpoints in Illinois, Oklahoma, and the eastern coast of Texas. Though the eastern coast of Texas borders the Gulf of Mexico, the pipeline is obviously not dumping oil directly into the Gulf. But thanks for trying to tie a land pipeline to oceanic oil spills.
The pipeline goes to the refineries along the gulf coast for easy transport. Who said anything about oil spills or dumping? Sounds like a truly pathetic strawman to me.
through protected wildlife refuges
Lie: TransCanada already rerouted the pipeline around the refuges in question.
They've proposed several routes, but are trying to push it through before any environment impact studies in the new areas can be researched or evaluated.
Please, people, stop calling it things like "Extending a Tax Cut".
Why? It extends a bill that created a short term cut in taxes. If such a bill is not passed taxes return to the "normal" level. How is "extending a tax cut" any more or less palatable than language describing a tax increase or decrease? I guess I don't even understand your objection to the terminology.
The Republicans (and apparently the President) wanted the tax holiday extended all year. The Democrats talked them down to two months.
You should really pay more attention. The Democrats presented a plan to extend the payroll cut for a year and keep medicare payouts at the same level. The Republicans presented a plan to extend the payroll cut for a year while at the same time guaranteeing the oil companies can build a pipeline from Alaska to the Gulf through protected wildlife refuges. Both groups compromised on extending it for two months (with some republicans trying to stall it) in order that they might argue more about which additional things should be added. Mostly, the Democrats have been trying to pass the cuts while the Republicans are refusing until they get the oil company benefits they promised lobbyists.
Claims that it is the Democrats that are preventing the passage of these tax cuts on a longer time frame is either disingenuous or reflects a twisted perception of reality. Stop watching Fox "News".
I agree with you on 90% of that, but the suggestion that it's gender inequality that men and women aren't made to shower together is bunk. It's not that the men can't control their animal impulses. It's that the situation is potentially embarrassing for everyone involved. Women don't want to be ogled. Men don't want to be visibly aroused in front of everyone. You're essentially arguing that we shouldn't need clothing at all.
We need clothing for protection from the elements, for the pockets to carry our gear, for camouflage, etc. Aside from that, we don't need them and the fact that we have laws requiring people to wear them is part of the problem. In places where people are more relaxed about nudity they don't have these problems and people hang out naked together in mixed company without lots of "ogling". Go to a finnish style sauna and gee there's dozens of men and women hanging out naked, even drinking and none of the guys are staring or erect. That's because it is normalized not some magical taboo. In other countries you'd have the same problem if you allowed women to show their faces and as such they are banned from many jobs that would require it. Just because it is culturally taboo doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't overcome it in order to provide an equal opportunity for people to rise based on merit and thus have a more competent pool of people for each task.
When arguing with bigots, it's tempting to contradict everything they say, because you understandably don't want to agree with them about anything. But it's important to be careful not to let yourself slip into the same sort of thoughtless extremism in your beliefs that they suffer from.
I prefer to think of it as thoughtful extremism. The military makes allowances for our cultural hang ups and to be effective that is the correct choice. That said, separate units, living quarters, sanitary facilities, etc. are relics of sexism and sexism is still a huge problem in our society. Separate (especially in a situation with an ingrained cultural "norm") is inherently unequal. The amount of sexual discrimination in the military is dreadful and separating genders out is a big part of perpetuating that.
Wrong, if you read the Sanctity of Life Act you are referring to, Ron Paul does not attempt to make it illegal to perform abortions, he seeks to force the federal government to keep their hands out of it and let the states decide.
So currently under federal law abortion is legal in general can only be banned in specific cases. Paul wants to get rid of that law. And you don't think that is tantamount to making abortions illegal? He wants to make it easier for other to make abortion illegal making it inevitable in some places. So yes, he wants to make abortion illegal, otherwise he wouldn't be doing anything on this topic.
Ron Paul has stated that he is pro-life but has also stated he does not wish to force that on others and wants the states to decide for themselves...
Yeah, that's about the same as gerrmandering. Guess what, right now everyone has the freedom to choose to get an abortion or not. And federally, that is also legal. So what does that leave him? Well he can try to put the choice in the hands of states, or if all the states pass laws making it legal will he then try to get those laws overturned saying it should be a matter for county governments?
Paul is hypocritical on this issue. He doesn't value personal freedom, he values choices being made at the government level where his personal opinions are most likely to be enforced as law.
Thank you, but I do mean the grizzled heavily-tattooed leathery skin beer and a shot of whisky Harley rider type of biker.
Well clearly if they ride a Harley they have no interest in reliable technology or things that just work:)
I kid, I kid. HD has come a long way since the 80s. Just a hint though, the average Harley rider is a 60 year old dentist from the burbs. Most of the grizzled, tattooed whiskey drinking bikers I know ride something metric that is more reliable and costs half as much or a chopped up classic. Harleys are like Cadillacs. They used to mean you were cool, now they mean you're old because you still think they are cool.
Feminist-progressivism? It is funny that espousing opinions often written by legionnaire military leaders is interpreted through the eyes of such sad, pseudo-polysci nonsense.
What kind of discipline is going to stop men from looking at boobs in co-ed showers (and a look, "the male gaze", is enough for women to complain of harassment)?
Looking is fine. Staring, leering, and being creepy is disrespectful and dishonorable. Such people are a liability not an asset to a modern military.
Castration?
I'm flattered you'd ask my opinion. If it is the only way to control yourself, I say go for it.
But killing and dying takes balls, not a suppression of those "animal impulses".
Bullshit. Brave hyped up men and women can do the dying. Soldiers are built of discipline and obeying orders regardless of your emotions is what wins battles.
I'll agree that guys aren't that sensitive so mixed showers with gays might not be a problem, but sex within communal living situations will erode discipline.
Please. People have been fucking forever. A disciplined soldier puts that behind them and does their bloody duty when it is time. In their off time, let them screw as they please.
Bradley Manning is currently arguing that being gay is a kind of mental illness that made him unfit to serve...will gays always have a "get out of army free card" even after "don't ask don't tell"?
First, this is off topic. Second, if the fact that someone argued something in their defensive arguments on trial were a valid reason to change what we do, we'd all be up shit creek. Berkowitz argued that his dog told him to murder. Does that mean we ban soldiers from owning dogs in case one tries to argue their dog told them to do it and thus use that "get out of jail free" card? What utter and complete nonsense. You should be ashamed of such empty rhetoric.
How would you like it if you were in the military and had to go through basic training, where the circumstances require you to shower in a room with up to 50 other guys showering in it... and they were allowed to be openly gay?
Umm, what exactly is the problem with that? Are you afraid the gay will rub off or something?
It's not like we can separate them from us like they do with female groups...
Which is itself a relic of gender inequality. I say put everyone together and teach discipline. If you can't behave honorably and control yourself in a shower with your fellow soldiers you shouldn't be in the military in the first place. How can such a person be expected to act under real stress where their suppressing their animal impulses and obeying orders will save the lives of their fellows or prevent the kinds of sickening, dishonorable abuse that has made American soldiers so easy to hate.
There shouldn't be any openly gay people in the military.
There shouldn't be homophobes in the military, nor people who can't see past one attribute of a fellow soldier and treat them as a person, with respect and honor.
Gays need to accept that the way they are is NOT the status quo...
Prejudiced dinosaurs like yourself need to realize the world has moved on. Ignorance and repression were socially acceptable in the past. People of other races, religions, philosophies, and preferences are as much people as you are and if you can't deal with it and them, you have no place representing the United States of America in any official capacity.
Slashdot Mirror
I noticed the same thing, especially being the developer with the second most seniority. The most senior developer never showed up, and I showed up about once a month. The meetings were worthless and a waste of time, which those of us who worked on the accounts with the most impact realized. I could spend 15 minutes talking about stupid crap, or fixing important crap that executives had visibility into. Which one made my job less painful?
You should probably be fired. Even if you're a competent worker, you're clearly not a team player and don't value informing others what is going on or care to learn what others are doing. Why would you spend 15 minutes talking about stupid crap? You seem to have missed the point entirely. If you don't have anything to say, say what you're working on then shut up and move on to the next person. Hell we do a stand up every day with between 15 and 70 people and the whole meeting almost never takes 15 minutes, but it certainly can be valuable. It sure beats traditional meetings.
Oh and the more senior engineer, also probably should be fired. If you can't show up on time and show enough respect for your colleagues to listen to what they're working on in case it effects what you're working on, well you're a dinosaur, and don't really fit into a collaborative or agile workplace which, frankly, is the winning model right now.
Boycotting apple is a good idea, yes everyone is using the same factories but it is unrealistic to boycott everyone at the same time. So why not pick the bully in the group and lay him out?
Because Apple is the only one actually doing anything to improve human rights among their suppliers. Other companies are bigger or just as big and have just as much visibility (e.g. Sony, Nintendo, MS) and those companies don't perform audits or if they do they don't publish them. They don't have an independent third party perform audits. They don't fire any companies over violations. They don't require changes. So pick on Apple because they were open and trying to make a difference, oh yeah that's a great way to motivate change, just not in the direction you seem to think. That is, unless you think the problem is hearing about human rights problems instead of the violations themelves.
Wow, you Apple fanatics sure know how to circle the wagons! The "But every other tech company does it!" defense doesn't resonate particularly well coming from a company whose corporate slogan tells us to "Think different".
I'm not an "Apple fanatic" being more than a little grumpy about several things they've done, but on this issue, Slashdot's consensus seems to be completely counterproductive. Can you provide a link to the human rights charter and yearly audits published by Sony? Can you tell me that HP has stopped doing business with one supplier over human rights violations? Can you show me where Nintendo or MS has forced a company to pay for a child laborer's living and schooling after being caught with children working in their plants? Can you show me any of these things from ANY major electronics manufacturer?
As far as I can tell Apple is the only company at all doing ANYTHING! You know when these Apple slave labor articles started? A couple years after Apple started publishing their audits openly and telling people the companies they fined, fired, or required changes at. Apple's audits were the source material for sensationalist crap by lazy, lazy pseudo-journalists. Now they are paying the price and every other company is learning a valuable lesson, don't do anything about human rights and certainly don't try to be open about it. Sweep it under the rug. Congratulations on motivating more suffering.
and the EULA for the authoring tool forces you to sell only via the Apple Store.
True, but we've seen this scene play out before. Apple's tool is only for getting content to sell more iPads, but as soon as there is a serious market, Adobe or someone else will be making tools that will make epub books specifically tailored for the iPad and for the leading Android and the Kindle. While I wish Apple would go with tools that publish to open standards right away I also see they are a business and want to encourage iPad sales, not just tablet sales in general. Now that we have a slick competitor in the authoring space though we should see competition heat up. That is good for everyone.
Talk about vendor lock-in.
Vendor lock in usually refers to paid products. We all expect vendor lock in when we are getting it for free. Is Grooveshark "vendor lock-in" because you can only listen to their music from their website? iBook author is FREE as a way of promoting Apple's service and devices. If they were selling it you might have room for complaint.
And good luck trying to sell your book at the end of the year back to the Apple Store...
With the economy of scale of textbooks, no one should ever have to sell one back. They should be permanent reference materials for the rest of your life. Hell, for a pittance compared to other spending the US or EU could easily fund the creation of hundred of top quality textbooks a year and give them away to the citizenry. That would be a reasonable investment in our future, certainly more so than most of the pork.
Umm, I've certainly worked on projects that include Webkit, Webkit2, and CUPS which are of course large projects used by many and where Apple established the community of contributors/collaborators.
This seems misleading. CUPS had an established community long before Apple bought it..
True enough, but it was also largely developed by one person, Michael Sweet. Apple helped to bring other contributors on board and get buy in from a lot more companies. Still, you have a point, it as probably not the best example.
Webkit is based off of KDE's ( yes, from the Linux world) Konqueror browser according to Wikipedia....
Webkit was based off of KHTML, which was the engine in Konqueror. At the time, however, only the KDE team worked on it and even Linux developers of note had trouble getting patches in. Apple took all their code, forked it, and contributed a metric crapton of work to make it what we think of today. They also built a series of open collaborations with Google, Nokia, and several other players to make it a project where more than one team could effectively make contributions.
I do however remember reports of the arm twisting done to get Apple to live up to the spirit and letter of the open source licenses.
You were suckered into believing lies and exaggerations. CUPS for example: Apple bought the company and has all the rights to the code. They can close source it anytime they want, but they don't. Most of the major underpinnings of OS X are based on BSD and Apple can close them anytime it wants, but it doesn't.
With the KHTML thing, Apple contributed all their code back at once without copying all the version control messages they used internally (although it was documented code). The KHTML team looked at all the work and were elated by the size of the contribution, but worried about how they would merge it back into Konqueror, given that some of the design choices were not the direction they wanted to go. So they contacted the devs at Apple who sent them all the version control information, access to a mirror of Apple's version control repository, and answered questions about what components did what and how they could chunk up the parts they wanted. You know, they acted like most devs you meet and were good OSS players that want to help out others.
Now if you were on the KHTML forums at the time you saw this saga unfold. If, however, you were just following the news posted here at Slashdot, what you saw was one person from the forums who was not even a contributor complaining loudly and to anyone who would listen about how evil Apple was for "stealing" the code and intentionally trying to delay contributing back (they waited until after their surprise announcement of Safari) and how they intentionally made the code they distributed unreadable. It was complete bullshit, but that is the only thing anyone around here seems to remember because so many people here want to hate Apple and want justification for their feelings, they they don't look into the truth and remember only the bits that confirm their bias.
to me, this is very misleading. "a bunch of core system components" -- except for, you know, little stuff like network drivers, graphics drivers, etc.
I'm not sure how it is misleading to say "here is the source for a bunch of stuff". He didn't say it was the source for all of it, just a bunch of it, as a demonstration that OS X is pretty much the opposite of "locked down" in that much of it is not only easy to tinker with but a lot of the source code is available. OS X is certainly not an OSS project, but neither is it "locked down" by any means.
As for drivers, I thought Apple relies upon hardware suppliers for most of them, the same as Windows and Linux distros that care more about performance than ideology.
as anyone who has actually tried to build that pile of ass knows, the apple 'open source' project is complete horse shit. they use an incredibly obfuscated build system that makes it impossible for anyone except Apple to actually compile their projects.
Umm, I've certainly worked on projects that include Webkit, Webkit2, and CUPS which are of course large projects used by many and where Apple established the community of contributors/collaborators. I've never had nor heard of anyone with real problems using Apple's contributions. Apple sometimes doesn't spend time making things nice for the community and things are poorly documented etc., but usually an e-mail to the Apple devs finds them very responsive and willing to help OSS projects reusing the code. That's why Apple open sources code in the first place, to get more eyes on it, more dev work, and get technologies more widely adopted (all of which benefits Apple as much as anyone).
So then...there is the dilema. Whose moral compass do you step on? Those against homosexuality, or those for it?
There is no dilemma because the people opposing gay marriage and the people in favor of allowing it both claim to be in favor of freedom. Freedom is allowing it and letting every individual decide. If one group thinks people should not do something and another thinks they should, freedom is letting each person choose. And that is why Ron Paul is a hypocrite. He talks about freedom but he really is just venue shopping for a way to force his personal beliefs on others and take freedom away from the individual.
2. "Many members feel that they have a moral imperative to attempt to push their moral agenda on people who have nothing to do with them"
Democrats do this also with issues like affirmative action and gay marriage.
Generally arguing politics on Slashdot is the blind screaming at the deaf. Still, this point deserves to be addressed. Preventing discrimination based on gender is not forcing morals on anyone. On the topic of gay marriage it is ensuring individual liberty. Allowing each individual to choose for themselves is not pushing a moral agenda on others. It is giving each individual the freedom to choose. Now if there were a law trying to force people to marry those of the same sex, you might have a point.
...I'm not against gay marriage but it is a moral issue for many people.
Yes, it is a moral issue. The issue is some people want to force their morals on others with the force of law and prevent individuals from making their own choices. Presenting the concept of allowing individuals to choose for themselves as an example of Democrats "do this also" when "do this" was previously described as "push their moral agenda on people" just shows how easy it is to buy into the fiery but empty rhetoric spewed forth by politicians.
Gay marriage is not an issue of Democrats pushing their morals on others. It is an issue of personal freedom and the government not promoting any specific religion. Marriage started out as a legal contract and then religions latched onto it. If the government wants to use marriage as a legal contract and write laws about it, they should do so in a way that does not discriminate between different religions or genders as is required by the first amendment. If Ron Paul and his ilk actually gave a damn about freedom they'd have exactly the opposite position on this topic.
2. "Many members feel that they have a moral imperative to attempt to push their moral agenda on people who have nothing to do with them"
Democrats do this also with issues like affirmative action and gay marriage.
Generally arguing politics on Slashdot is the blind screaming at the deaf. Still, this point deserves to be addressed. Preventing discrimination based on gender is not forcing morals on anyone. On the topic of gay marriage it is ensuring individual liberty. Allowing each individual to choose for themselves is not pushing a moral agenda on others. It is giving each individual the freedom to choose. Now if there were a law trying to force people to marry those of the same sex, you might have a point.
...Delicious Library might be the right thing...
Seconded. If you're looking for something really, really simple and easy to use for people that are not technically expert and you don't mind shelling out for an old Mac Mini and $35 for the software; this is a really solid choice. From a usability point of view it simply blows everything else out of the water.
It depends on what it is that you are saying Google has a monopoly in. Their search market share is about 65%. I would say it isn't a monopoly because there are basically no barriers to entry for a new competitor.
I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding why we have antitrust law. It is not about insuring other companies can compete in a market and destroy the monopoly. It is about making sure the monopoly does not grow to influence other markets and damage commerce in general. If the point was to prevent monopolies we'd make monopolies illegal.
Regardless of what barriers to entry there are, the question at hand is if Google has enough influence in a given market, that they have to obey specific laws with regard to how they tie other products and services to the aforementioned market.
If you define their business as advertising, then it might be a different story. I have no idea what their market share is in online advertising.
The law applies to all markets Google is playing in, so both search and advertising markets. For example, it would not be at all strange for the courts to look at the mobile phone advertising market, where Google has ~98% share and then see what other products Google is tying to mobile advertising. If Google did something like charge advertisers twice as much for ads on non-Android phones, Google would have a big antitrust problem. So far, however, I haven't seen any really glaring abuse (although I also have not really researched it).
No, you can't "define" markets by choosing arbitrary subsets, like "search engine providers with 'oogle' in their name, or Application search providers for mobile computers with an 'apple shaped' logo on them. The entire market is the entire market.
You're an idiot. You have to define what the "entire market" is in order to meaningfully discuss or evaluate it.
Last I heard, Google had less than 65% market share. Not very dominant if you ask me.
65% is fairly close, but then you have to specify a market to have a share of it, and a lot of antitrust law deals with defining the relevant markets. Take a subset of customers, like mobile phone users, then subtract out all of the services that don't work for mobile users and does Google have more than 70% of the remaining share? Is that influencing other markets where they have bundled a service with their products? Then again, you have to also remove non-relavent shares of the market, where they are not bundling, like users of search that use the search on their browser but are not directed to Google's bundled services.
It is certainly an area of concern for them these days and they may well be in violation of the law, but they have a lot better numbers on it than we do.
How is Google using search to promote their other properties any different from FOX airing ads for upcoming shows during a football game? If they didn't have any real competition, I could understand it, but the search market has lots of competitors.
If you have overwhelming dominance in one area, it is illegal to leverage that dominance to gain in other markets. It is legal to bundle shampoo and conditioner and sell them as a package right up until you gain dominance (guidance is 70%) of either the shampoo or conditioner market. As far as I know, no one has alleged Fox has 70% market share of, well any market. Google, on the other hand is estimated to have reached this dominance in several markets including mobile advertising where some put their market share as high as 98%. Bundling their other services then becomes a question for the courts.
All that said, the summary for this article was a bit off in that revamping their main search page does not seem to have bundled any more or fewer services with their search.
Solar panels absorb sun rays that would normally heat the ground. If we used solar panels on a large scale, we would drastically change the environment.
You know the energy does not disappear right? It is converted into electricity which powers heaters and appliances that in turn give off heat. Large scale electrical could change some regional climate, but it is unlikely to have much effect on a large scale, especially given the amounts we need/use and can capture in an area.
guaranteeing
Lie: The Republican proposal guaranteed a RULING up or down within 90 days, but did not guarantee approval.
True enough, it just forces a decision on the proposal in a very short timeframe and before the EPA study of probable effects will be finished.
the oil companies can build a pipeline from Alaska
Lie: The Northern end of the pipeline is in Canada.
Umm, I guess you're right it is from Alberta not Alaska, although that seems worse in my opinion not better. We're now risking our protected wildlife area in order to process foreign oil, not even Alaskan?
to the Gulf
Half-lie: The pipeline goes to endpoints in Illinois, Oklahoma, and the eastern coast of Texas. Though the eastern coast of Texas borders the Gulf of Mexico, the pipeline is obviously not dumping oil directly into the Gulf. But thanks for trying to tie a land pipeline to oceanic oil spills.
The pipeline goes to the refineries along the gulf coast for easy transport. Who said anything about oil spills or dumping? Sounds like a truly pathetic strawman to me.
through protected wildlife refuges
Lie: TransCanada already rerouted the pipeline around the refuges in question.
They've proposed several routes, but are trying to push it through before any environment impact studies in the new areas can be researched or evaluated.
Amazing lie density. I'm impressed.
You have some serious problems man. Get help.
Please, people, stop calling it things like "Extending a Tax Cut".
Why? It extends a bill that created a short term cut in taxes. If such a bill is not passed taxes return to the "normal" level. How is "extending a tax cut" any more or less palatable than language describing a tax increase or decrease? I guess I don't even understand your objection to the terminology.
The Republicans (and apparently the President) wanted the tax holiday extended all year. The Democrats talked them down to two months.
You should really pay more attention. The Democrats presented a plan to extend the payroll cut for a year and keep medicare payouts at the same level. The Republicans presented a plan to extend the payroll cut for a year while at the same time guaranteeing the oil companies can build a pipeline from Alaska to the Gulf through protected wildlife refuges. Both groups compromised on extending it for two months (with some republicans trying to stall it) in order that they might argue more about which additional things should be added. Mostly, the Democrats have been trying to pass the cuts while the Republicans are refusing until they get the oil company benefits they promised lobbyists.
Claims that it is the Democrats that are preventing the passage of these tax cuts on a longer time frame is either disingenuous or reflects a twisted perception of reality. Stop watching Fox "News".
I agree with you on 90% of that, but the suggestion that it's gender inequality that men and women aren't made to shower together is bunk. It's not that the men can't control their animal impulses. It's that the situation is potentially embarrassing for everyone involved. Women don't want to be ogled. Men don't want to be visibly aroused in front of everyone. You're essentially arguing that we shouldn't need clothing at all.
We need clothing for protection from the elements, for the pockets to carry our gear, for camouflage, etc. Aside from that, we don't need them and the fact that we have laws requiring people to wear them is part of the problem. In places where people are more relaxed about nudity they don't have these problems and people hang out naked together in mixed company without lots of "ogling". Go to a finnish style sauna and gee there's dozens of men and women hanging out naked, even drinking and none of the guys are staring or erect. That's because it is normalized not some magical taboo. In other countries you'd have the same problem if you allowed women to show their faces and as such they are banned from many jobs that would require it. Just because it is culturally taboo doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't overcome it in order to provide an equal opportunity for people to rise based on merit and thus have a more competent pool of people for each task.
When arguing with bigots, it's tempting to contradict everything they say, because you understandably don't want to agree with them about anything. But it's important to be careful not to let yourself slip into the same sort of thoughtless extremism in your beliefs that they suffer from.
I prefer to think of it as thoughtful extremism. The military makes allowances for our cultural hang ups and to be effective that is the correct choice. That said, separate units, living quarters, sanitary facilities, etc. are relics of sexism and sexism is still a huge problem in our society. Separate (especially in a situation with an ingrained cultural "norm") is inherently unequal. The amount of sexual discrimination in the military is dreadful and separating genders out is a big part of perpetuating that.
Wrong, if you read the Sanctity of Life Act you are referring to, Ron Paul does not attempt to make it illegal to perform abortions, he seeks to force the federal government to keep their hands out of it and let the states decide.
So currently under federal law abortion is legal in general can only be banned in specific cases. Paul wants to get rid of that law. And you don't think that is tantamount to making abortions illegal? He wants to make it easier for other to make abortion illegal making it inevitable in some places. So yes, he wants to make abortion illegal, otherwise he wouldn't be doing anything on this topic.
Ron Paul has stated that he is pro-life but has also stated he does not wish to force that on others and wants the states to decide for themselves...
Yeah, that's about the same as gerrmandering. Guess what, right now everyone has the freedom to choose to get an abortion or not. And federally, that is also legal. So what does that leave him? Well he can try to put the choice in the hands of states, or if all the states pass laws making it legal will he then try to get those laws overturned saying it should be a matter for county governments?
Paul is hypocritical on this issue. He doesn't value personal freedom, he values choices being made at the government level where his personal opinions are most likely to be enforced as law.
Thank you, but I do mean the grizzled heavily-tattooed leathery skin beer and a shot of whisky Harley rider type of biker.
Well clearly if they ride a Harley they have no interest in reliable technology or things that just work :)
I kid, I kid. HD has come a long way since the 80s. Just a hint though, the average Harley rider is a 60 year old dentist from the burbs. Most of the grizzled, tattooed whiskey drinking bikers I know ride something metric that is more reliable and costs half as much or a chopped up classic. Harleys are like Cadillacs. They used to mean you were cool, now they mean you're old because you still think they are cool.
Feminist-progressivism has driven you insane.
Feminist-progressivism? It is funny that espousing opinions often written by legionnaire military leaders is interpreted through the eyes of such sad, pseudo-polysci nonsense.
What kind of discipline is going to stop men from looking at boobs in co-ed showers (and a look, "the male gaze", is enough for women to complain of harassment)?
Looking is fine. Staring, leering, and being creepy is disrespectful and dishonorable. Such people are a liability not an asset to a modern military.
Castration?
I'm flattered you'd ask my opinion. If it is the only way to control yourself, I say go for it.
But killing and dying takes balls, not a suppression of those "animal impulses".
Bullshit. Brave hyped up men and women can do the dying. Soldiers are built of discipline and obeying orders regardless of your emotions is what wins battles.
I'll agree that guys aren't that sensitive so mixed showers with gays might not be a problem, but sex within communal living situations will erode discipline.
Please. People have been fucking forever. A disciplined soldier puts that behind them and does their bloody duty when it is time. In their off time, let them screw as they please.
Bradley Manning is currently arguing that being gay is a kind of mental illness that made him unfit to serve...will gays always have a "get out of army free card" even after "don't ask don't tell"?
First, this is off topic. Second, if the fact that someone argued something in their defensive arguments on trial were a valid reason to change what we do, we'd all be up shit creek. Berkowitz argued that his dog told him to murder. Does that mean we ban soldiers from owning dogs in case one tries to argue their dog told them to do it and thus use that "get out of jail free" card? What utter and complete nonsense. You should be ashamed of such empty rhetoric.
How would you like it if you were in the military and had to go through basic training, where the circumstances require you to shower in a room with up to 50 other guys showering in it... and they were allowed to be openly gay?
Umm, what exactly is the problem with that? Are you afraid the gay will rub off or something?
It's not like we can separate them from us like they do with female groups...
Which is itself a relic of gender inequality. I say put everyone together and teach discipline. If you can't behave honorably and control yourself in a shower with your fellow soldiers you shouldn't be in the military in the first place. How can such a person be expected to act under real stress where their suppressing their animal impulses and obeying orders will save the lives of their fellows or prevent the kinds of sickening, dishonorable abuse that has made American soldiers so easy to hate.
There shouldn't be any openly gay people in the military.
There shouldn't be homophobes in the military, nor people who can't see past one attribute of a fellow soldier and treat them as a person, with respect and honor.
Gays need to accept that the way they are is NOT the status quo...
Prejudiced dinosaurs like yourself need to realize the world has moved on. Ignorance and repression were socially acceptable in the past. People of other races, religions, philosophies, and preferences are as much people as you are and if you can't deal with it and them, you have no place representing the United States of America in any official capacity.
copyrighted (copywritten?)
Copyrighted. As in, the government granted monopoly on the right to make copies of a work; ostensibly for the promotion of useful arts and sciences.