The real irony is that Hewlett-Packard destroyed the orchards and that Apple, the company HP rejected in its infancy (Wozniak), is now replacing HP's old buildings with orchards...
Tim Berners-Lee is certainly not a "nutjob", you however seem to fit that bill. Paranoid anti-government nut?
Secondly, he's a European and we have a different view of things. Indeed, we have positive rights and are all the better off for it. We take care of our citizens and we don't consider the state the "enemy". Our citizens have the right to get both medical treatment and other benefits.
The right to have stuff "given" to you does not logically deny another person the same goods or services.
Google this and Google that, you clearly missed the point, size and importance, I even made the text bold to emphasize it.
Any company, now and in the future, that has this amount of influence, power and impact on whole countries is going to have be kept in check. There is no anti-Google sentiment in this, there's only pertinent vigilance.
While Google may strive to achieve new and good things they're not always aware of the [unintended] consequences or legal issues that arise. We as democratic nations must keep sustained attention on their activities that may fall foul of our laws and principles by chance or with intent. Germany's history in particular serves as an example and only underlines the importance of vigilance.
There are many interesting applications of Google's technologies out there, it doesn't mean it should always be allowed. This is a democratic and legal issue, not a technological one. If you really can't see how important that is I believe you are correct; they must see something you don't.
The nationality of the company has nothing to do with it, any company of Google's size and importance will come under scrutiny.
It is clearly a good thing that we keep Google and others in check, never in history has the phrase "quis custodiet ipsos custodes" been more appropriate. For who does watch the watchmen?
The United Nations' Human Rights Committee still found it was satisfied that Sweden had "at least plausible grounds for considering, at the time, the case in question to present national security concerns." In consequence, the Committee did not find "a violation of article 13 of the Covenant for the failure to be allowed to submit reasons against his deportation and have the case reviewed by a competent authority".
It only became illegal when the guarantees failed otherwise it would have been legal.
The fates of these men has since been used in courts to prevent other deportations to Egypt from other countries, in spite of guarantees. Despite your claims to the contrary.
Where is your statistical evidence that this occurs routinely? I see the opposite.
They did not ignore the treaty, Sweden had negotiated guarantees from Egypt, which were found to be inadequate. This is line with the treaty, the result was not. Case closed.
Once they're outside Sweden it's hard for the Swedes to do anything about it. I doubt it was done in bad faith, we take it very seriously indeed. However in hindsight you could say the Egyptians could not to be trusted. I doubt they'll make that mistake again.
Since both the UK and Sweden are bound by the European Convention on Human Rights they are explicitly forbidden from extraditing a person to any country where he may face the death penalty.
It does not have to be definite or clear, but if there are doubts and he could possibly be tried as a spy he would absolutely have to be protected from extradition to the US.
You see both the UK and Sweden are bound by the European Convention on Human Rights which explicitly prohibits extraditing people to any country when there is a possibility that he could be sentenced to death, tortured or suffer bodily harm.
The US is one of those few Western countries that continues to sentence people to death, not a single country in Europe does that.
I seriously doubt you have any or detailed knowledge of US and/or European (EU) competition law. If anything your claim that US law is "stronger" in that area is seems based upon your nationalist bias. Where is your evidence? In reality most of these frameworks are now harmonized by agreements and conventions usually from forums under the UN or the WTO.
If any anecdotal evidence is admissible I hereby claim that the US lack of action after the conviction of Microsoft shows that the US law is weaker in that area. Oh, and I will support my claim by referring to actual competition law; under the relevant section, in the EU, monopolies are illegal simply for existing, where as under US law there has to be a "linked" negative effect for it to be considered illegal. Which is stricter?
So, when is the US going to stop this? Or is the US government equally "socialist"?
Oh, and you're an idiot. The EU clearly allowed this enterprise to go on with its business. It even insured that other competitors will not be hindered from innovating!
Well, English is a close cousin of all the Scandinavian languages, but more to the point Old Norse.
The original Old English language was influenced by two waves of invasion: the first by speakers of the Scandinavian branch of the Germanic language family, who conquered and colonized parts of Britain in the 8th and 9th centuries; the second by the Normans in the 11th century, who spoke Old Norman.
However it was the Danish and Norwegian Vikings that attacked and settled in Britain. Have you heard of the Danelaw? So it would be more precise to say English has a closer relationship with Danish/Norwegian than Swedish.
In fact some dialects still exist in the northwest of England that sounds like modern Norwegian (BBC, 2008). Indeed, modern genetic sampling and research reveals a lot of Viking blood heritage in England, Ireland and Scotland.
The influence of this period of Scandinavian settlement can still be seen, and is particularly evident in place-names: name endings such as -howe, -by ("village") or "thorp" ("hamlet").
Furthermore many British island groups, including the Isle of Man(n) and Shetland, belonged to Norwegian Kings for hundreds of years. Indeed York was once known by its original name Jorvik. Dublin (Dubh Linn) and other Irish cities were Viking settlements.
Then later the descendants of Norwegian/Danish settlers in Normandy, France, decided to invade and conquer England. Of course by that time William the Conqueror and his men spoke French. His father again was the well known [Norwegain/Danish] Rollo, or Hrólfr, who forced the French king to sign a treaty ceding part of the province to him, from which it took the name of Normandy, the country of the Northmen.
Ironically it was the attack of the invading Norwegian Viking army under King Harald Hardråda and Tostig Godwinson, brother of the English King, that led to the fall of England to the Normans. King Harold managed to beat the Norwegian invaders at the Battle of Stamford Bridge, near York, but was not strong enough to withstand a second attack by the Norman army. In 1066 at the time of the Battle of Hastings the languages were mutually intelligible.
Swedish Vikings moved east and played a major role in the development of Russia. These Vikings are know as the Rus and it is from this name that the name of Russia has been derived. Actually the Rus were Swedish Vikings meaning the northern Germanic tribes which setteled in Sweden. The Term Rus was not what they called themselves, but the name given them by the Finns. Today Sweden is Ruotsia in Finnish.
English, the three Scandinavian languages, Icelandic, Dutch and German all belong to the Germanic language family.
The French know how to build reactors and they do so all over the world. They have a long history of working with nuclear technology. From Curie to the next generation EPR.
The world's leading company in nuclear energy is the French Areva, and the German government owns 34% of it through Siemens.
Not only do they power their own country using a large number of nuclear power stations, 90% of EDF's power is nuclear, but they also export this power to several other European countries. Without proper engineering and security it would not be possible. As if that wasn't enough they build power plants around the world from the US to India!
There have been no serious accidents that have caused anything like Chernobyl in France. So where's your evidence of a lack of security? Their present production supports my claim that they know what they're doing.
In reality the Swedish and Scandinavian prices are in fact even cheaper when you take into account the relative purchasing power parity of the average Scandinavian citizen.
Scandinavians, Norwegians in particular, have higher wages per hour, especially considering currency exchange rates, those wages pay for more than their British counterparts.
In other words Scandinavians get more Internet, for their money, for each hour they worked.
Yes, of course, I always take advice from people on Slashdot. Too bad I lost you, and if I did, why would I bother adapting to suit your tastes? Nice waste of your time.
I must admit I'm slightly hypocritical because I just quit my present job (IT) and I also work from home... I'm looking forward to working in an office again.
I know all about the problems of communication and the downsides of home offices. Not least the problem that work is always on your mind.
I still think it's better use of our shared resources to have permanent home offices and simply change credentials when we change employers. My employer even pays me for "use" of my home office as it is.
While I don't disagree with you I think the point made was that people live far away from their places of work regardless. In terms of planning that's not economically logical or environmentally friendly.
In the past decades we have focused on bringing people to buildings, while we should be looking at this issue from the point of the least possible impact and cost on a macroeconomic scale. Unless you perform a service in person or require expensive machinery there's no reason you should commute.
We should focus more on creating a new culture, and economic conditions where it's profoundly more beneficial for employers and employees to telecommute. Why waste energy and money unless there's an actual need? Society as a whole should increase the cost of transport for non-essential travel during the morning/afternoon commute and create incentives for telecommuting for everyone involved. And possibly make more use of differential pricing [of road use/fuel] based upon "classes" of users?
Your mistake is assuming that American law applies. There's no question that it's legal within the US, however services offered in Europe to European citizens is subject to European law. The information sought is clearly protected under European laws.
Why do I even bother? It's Slashdot, mostly Americans and people reading this don't know the details of any legal system.
Given your theory, that would be an important distinction, no?
Not really. The focus should be on dismantling organized criminal networks. They cause far more damage in terms of numbers of victims.
You are obviously referring to American laws on the subject, we don't have the same laws. It's perfectly legal in the Netherlands for example for the mentioned 17 year old. Commercial production and distribution is actually subject to different laws here. You really should think about the context of this discussion.
Wait, you say there's a link...
Do you even know what trafficking means? The same people that trade in people for prostitution are involved in other forms of organized crime.
There are three primary, interrelated forms of commercial sexual exploitation that comprise the sex trade: prostitution, pornography, and trafficking for sexual purposes.
It's why it's so important to take down the networks. They're far more dangerous than the person simply motivated by personal preferences. This is a multi-billion dollar industry.
I'd say you are an expert...
Well, I did want to work for the computer crimes division of the public prosecutor. I read more than my fair share of books on the matter, but I ended up doing commercial work instead.
There's no way we could ever verify this...
Well, there are actually a number of studies from various sources including the EU, UN, WHO etc. There's also the horrible facts of the matter on the ground in countries such as Thailand, Gambia, Cambodia and so on. This rather short report is a very informative summary.
Anonymity involved with payments...
The anonymity I referred to did not involve commercial transactions, however it made it possible for like minded people to meet. Of course transactions were harder to track in the early days of the Internet, now it's easy for the police to track and monitor payments. It doesn't mean there's no money being exchanged.
I've read studies that suggested that the availability in itself created a larger market. They basically suggest that the Internet itself lead to higher recruitment.
I can't be bothered to reply beyond this, I find your attitude rather puzzling and irreverent.
Well, in this case we're talking about European governments and our [European] jurisdictions.
The problem is that the majority of such crimes now happen in poor Asian countries, Africa, Russia or the Ukraine. None of which are subject to European Union laws.
This has been addressed by the EU and partially solved in terms of prosecution. European citizens can be charged and sentenced according to European laws despite the crime occuring in a foreign jurisdiction.
While the DHS case you cited appears to run foul of US jurisdiction it's not actually the case in my opinion. In some sense jurisdiction is a question of what effective power you have over the area in question. While it technically should be outside the US' power to take down foreign operated websites it's not actually the case for now. There are always other TLDs they can move to.
I know the European governments in question are in fact working hard to stop exactly the crimes you described. I don't know what "governments" you had in mind.
The European Union, EUROPOL and national police forces collaborate, and have shut down several such criminal networks each year. They have a permanent task force, CIRCAMP, dedicated to this.
In 2010 the European Union even updated and increased the powers of the police to respond to online grooming, the absence of positive identification of child victims, criminalizing offences committed abroad, protecting victims by giving them further legal protections and creating prevention programmes for past offenders.
I remember learning in school that the only effective way to stop the production and distribution [of drugs] was to target the market.
If you attack the producers, someone will replace them soon enough. However if you remove the market, reducing the demand, production and profits will naturally stop.
Of course that doesn't mean it won't still happen, but at least there won't be "inspiration" available.
Many buzzwords are associated with Mac OS X: Mach kernel, microkernel, FreeBSD kernel, C++, 64 bit, UNIX... and while all of these apply in some way, "XNU", the Mac OS X kernel is neither Mach, nor FreeBSD-based, it's not a microkernel, it's not written in C++ and it's not 64 bit - but it is UNIX... but just since recently.
This video and powerpoint clears up the confusion by presenting details of the Mac OS X kernel architecture, its components Mach, BSD and I/O-Kit, what's so different and special about this design, and what the special strengths of it are.
It intends to unify hundreds of the best scientists in Europe in a 10 year 1 billion EUR program to explore social life on earth and everything it relates to. The FuturICT flagship will produce historic breakthroughs and provide powerful new ways to manage challenges that make the modern world so difficult to predict, including the financial crisis.
The FuturICT Knowledge Accelerator is a previously unseen multidisciplinary international scientific endeavour with focus on techno-socio-economic-environmental systems. The three main achievements of the FuturICT flagship will be the establishment of - a Living Earth Simulator (global-scale simulation of techno-socio-economic systems), - Crisis Observatories (for financial instabilities, scarcity of resources, emerging risks and conflicts, epidemics, etc.), and - an Innovation Accelerator (identifying innovations early on, evaluating them across disciplines and supporting co-creation projects between different scientific disciplines, business, and governance).
I see you failed to comment or notice the fact that a great many of the countries with the highest income and longest life expectancy are in fact European countries with heavy market regulation (social-democracies). Some of the richest and most productive nations happen to be the Northern European countries which are very "socialist" [in American terms]. In Scandinavia we tend to see ourselves as the "third way", a balanced mix of both systems.
I'm not advocating any ideology or economic system but I think your conclusion is a bit one sided and not in line with the facts.
P.S. I'm a citizen of a wealthy, social-democratic, Scandinavian nation, according to the OECD the citizens of my country are more productive than the average US citizen (127%). You can look up the data yourself at http://stats.oecd.org/ and the report "Productivity levels and GDP per capita".
Slashdot Mirror
The real irony is that Hewlett-Packard destroyed the orchards and that Apple, the company HP rejected in its infancy (Wozniak), is now replacing HP's old buildings with orchards...
Is that you, Mr. Dell?
To be precise the Mac OS X kernel is XNU, it consists of Mach, BSD and I/O-Kit.
XNU is not based on the FreeBSD kernel, XNU does however contain some FreeBSD code (network stack, FS, etc.).
Tim Berners-Lee is certainly not a "nutjob", you however seem to fit that bill. Paranoid anti-government nut?
Secondly, he's a European and we have a different view of things. Indeed, we have positive rights and are all the better off for it. We take care of our citizens and we don't consider the state the "enemy". Our citizens have the right to get both medical treatment and other benefits.
The right to have stuff "given" to you does not logically deny another person the same goods or services.
Google this and Google that, you clearly missed the point, size and importance, I even made the text bold to emphasize it.
Any company, now and in the future, that has this amount of influence, power and impact on whole countries is going to have be kept in check. There is no anti-Google sentiment in this, there's only pertinent vigilance.
While Google may strive to achieve new and good things they're not always aware of the [unintended] consequences or legal issues that arise. We as democratic nations must keep sustained attention on their activities that may fall foul of our laws and principles by chance or with intent. Germany's history in particular serves as an example and only underlines the importance of vigilance.
There are many interesting applications of Google's technologies out there, it doesn't mean it should always be allowed. This is a democratic and legal issue, not a technological one. If you really can't see how important that is I believe you are correct; they must see something you don't.
The nationality of the company has nothing to do with it, any company of Google's size and importance will come under scrutiny.
It is clearly a good thing that we keep Google and others in check, never in history has the phrase "quis custodiet ipsos custodes" been more appropriate. For who does watch the watchmen?
The United Nations' Human Rights Committee still found it was satisfied that Sweden had "at least plausible grounds for considering, at the time, the case in question to present national security concerns." In consequence, the Committee did not find "a violation of article 13 of the Covenant for the failure to be allowed to submit reasons against his deportation and have the case reviewed by a competent authority".
It only became illegal when the guarantees failed otherwise it would have been legal.
The fates of these men has since been used in courts to prevent other deportations to Egypt from other countries, in spite of guarantees. Despite your claims to the contrary.
Where is your statistical evidence that this occurs routinely? I see the opposite.
They did not ignore the treaty, Sweden had negotiated guarantees from Egypt, which were found to be inadequate. This is line with the treaty, the result was not. Case closed.
Once they're outside Sweden it's hard for the Swedes to do anything about it. I doubt it was done in bad faith, we take it very seriously indeed. However in hindsight you could say the Egyptians could not to be trusted. I doubt they'll make that mistake again.
Actually the conditions are exactly identical.
Since both the UK and Sweden are bound by the European Convention on Human Rights they are explicitly forbidden from extraditing a person to any country where he may face the death penalty.
It does not have to be definite or clear, but if there are doubts and he could possibly be tried as a spy he would absolutely have to be protected from extradition to the US.
Just as likely? No, that is simply not the case.
You see both the UK and Sweden are bound by the European Convention on Human Rights which explicitly prohibits extraditing people to any country when there is a possibility that he could be sentenced to death, tortured or suffer bodily harm.
The US is one of those few Western countries that continues to sentence people to death, not a single country in Europe does that.
I seriously doubt you have any or detailed knowledge of US and/or European (EU) competition law. If anything your claim that US law is "stronger" in that area is seems based upon your nationalist bias. Where is your evidence? In reality most of these frameworks are now harmonized by agreements and conventions usually from forums under the UN or the WTO.
If any anecdotal evidence is admissible I hereby claim that the US lack of action after the conviction of Microsoft shows that the US law is weaker in that area. Oh, and I will support my claim by referring to actual competition law; under the relevant section, in the EU, monopolies are illegal simply for existing, where as under US law there has to be a "linked" negative effect for it to be considered illegal. Which is stricter?
So, when is the US going to stop this? Or is the US government equally "socialist"?
Oh, and you're an idiot. The EU clearly allowed this enterprise to go on with its business. It even insured that other competitors will not be hindered from innovating!
Well, English is a close cousin of all the Scandinavian languages, but more to the point Old Norse.
The original Old English language was influenced by two waves of invasion: the first by speakers of the Scandinavian branch of the Germanic language family, who conquered and colonized parts of Britain in the 8th and 9th centuries; the second by the Normans in the 11th century, who spoke Old Norman.
However it was the Danish and Norwegian Vikings that attacked and settled in Britain. Have you heard of the Danelaw? So it would be more precise to say English has a closer relationship with Danish/Norwegian than Swedish.
In fact some dialects still exist in the northwest of England that sounds like modern Norwegian (BBC, 2008). Indeed, modern genetic sampling and research reveals a lot of Viking blood heritage in England, Ireland and Scotland.
The influence of this period of Scandinavian settlement can still be seen, and is particularly evident in place-names: name endings such as -howe, -by ("village") or "thorp" ("hamlet").
Furthermore many British island groups, including the Isle of Man(n) and Shetland, belonged to Norwegian Kings for hundreds of years. Indeed York was once known by its original name Jorvik. Dublin (Dubh Linn) and other Irish cities were Viking settlements.
Then later the descendants of Norwegian/Danish settlers in Normandy, France, decided to invade and conquer England. Of course by that time William the Conqueror and his men spoke French. His father again was the well known [Norwegain/Danish] Rollo, or Hrólfr, who forced the French king to sign a treaty ceding part of the province to him, from which it took the name of Normandy, the country of the Northmen.
Ironically it was the attack of the invading Norwegian Viking army under King Harald Hardråda and Tostig Godwinson, brother of the English King, that led to the fall of England to the Normans. King Harold managed to beat the Norwegian invaders at the Battle of Stamford Bridge, near York, but was not strong enough to withstand a second attack by the Norman army. In 1066 at the time of the Battle of Hastings the languages were mutually intelligible.
Swedish Vikings moved east and played a major role in the development of Russia. These Vikings are know as the Rus and it is from this name that the name of Russia has been derived. Actually the Rus were Swedish Vikings meaning the northern Germanic tribes which setteled in Sweden. The Term Rus was not what they called themselves, but the name given them by the Finns. Today Sweden is Ruotsia in Finnish.
English, the three Scandinavian languages, Icelandic, Dutch and German all belong to the Germanic language family.
The French know how to build reactors and they do so all over the world. They have a long history of working with nuclear technology. From Curie to the next generation EPR.
The world's leading company in nuclear energy is the French Areva, and the German government owns 34% of it through Siemens.
Not only do they power their own country using a large number of nuclear power stations, 90% of EDF's power is nuclear, but they also export this power to several other European countries. Without proper engineering and security it would not be possible. As if that wasn't enough they build power plants around the world from the US to India!
There have been no serious accidents that have caused anything like Chernobyl in France. So where's your evidence of a lack of security? Their present production supports my claim that they know what they're doing.
In reality the Swedish and Scandinavian prices are in fact even cheaper when you take into account the relative purchasing power parity of the average Scandinavian citizen.
Scandinavians, Norwegians in particular, have higher wages per hour, especially considering currency exchange rates, those wages pay for more than their British counterparts.
In other words Scandinavians get more Internet, for their money, for each hour they worked.
Yes, of course, I always take advice from people on Slashdot. Too bad I lost you, and if I did, why would I bother adapting to suit your tastes? Nice waste of your time.
I make an effort, you act like a dick.
I must admit I'm slightly hypocritical because I just quit my present job (IT) and I also work from home... I'm looking forward to working in an office again.
I know all about the problems of communication and the downsides of home offices. Not least the problem that work is always on your mind.
I still think it's better use of our shared resources to have permanent home offices and simply change credentials when we change employers. My employer even pays me for "use" of my home office as it is.
While I don't disagree with you I think the point made was that people live far away from their places of work regardless. In terms of planning that's not economically logical or environmentally friendly.
In the past decades we have focused on bringing people to buildings, while we should be looking at this issue from the point of the least possible impact and cost on a macroeconomic scale. Unless you perform a service in person or require expensive machinery there's no reason you should commute.
We should focus more on creating a new culture, and economic conditions where it's profoundly more beneficial for employers and employees to telecommute. Why waste energy and money unless there's an actual need? Society as a whole should increase the cost of transport for non-essential travel during the morning/afternoon commute and create incentives for telecommuting for everyone involved. And possibly make more use of differential pricing [of road use/fuel] based upon "classes" of users?
Your mistake is assuming that American law applies. There's no question that it's legal within the US, however services offered in Europe to European citizens is subject to European law. The information sought is clearly protected under European laws.
Why do I even bother? It's Slashdot, mostly Americans and people reading this don't know the details of any legal system.
Not really. The focus should be on dismantling organized criminal networks. They cause far more damage in terms of numbers of victims.
You are obviously referring to American laws on the subject, we don't have the same laws. It's perfectly legal in the Netherlands for example for the mentioned 17 year old. Commercial production and distribution is actually subject to different laws here. You really should think about the context of this discussion.
Do you even know what trafficking means? The same people that trade in people for prostitution are involved in other forms of organized crime.
There are three primary, interrelated forms of commercial sexual exploitation that comprise the sex trade: prostitution, pornography, and trafficking for sexual purposes.
It's why it's so important to take down the networks. They're far more dangerous than the person simply motivated by personal preferences. This is a multi-billion dollar industry.
Well, I did want to work for the computer crimes division of the public prosecutor. I read more than my fair share of books on the matter, but I ended up doing commercial work instead.
Well, there are actually a number of studies from various sources including the EU, UN, WHO etc. There's also the horrible facts of the matter on the ground in countries such as Thailand, Gambia, Cambodia and so on. This rather short report is a very informative summary.
The anonymity I referred to did not involve commercial transactions, however it made it possible for like minded people to meet. Of course transactions were harder to track in the early days of the Internet, now it's easy for the police to track and monitor payments. It doesn't mean there's no money being exchanged.
I've read studies that suggested that the availability in itself created a larger market. They basically suggest that the Internet itself lead to higher recruitment.
I can't be bothered to reply beyond this, I find your attitude rather puzzling and irreverent.
Well, in this case we're talking about European governments and our [European] jurisdictions.
The problem is that the majority of such crimes now happen in poor Asian countries, Africa, Russia or the Ukraine. None of which are subject to European Union laws.
This has been addressed by the EU and partially solved in terms of prosecution. European citizens can be charged and sentenced according to European laws despite the crime occuring in a foreign jurisdiction.
While the DHS case you cited appears to run foul of US jurisdiction it's not actually the case in my opinion. In some sense jurisdiction is a question of what effective power you have over the area in question. While it technically should be outside the US' power to take down foreign operated websites it's not actually the case for now. There are always other TLDs they can move to.
I know the European governments in question are in fact working hard to stop exactly the crimes you described. I don't know what "governments" you had in mind.
The European Union, EUROPOL and national police forces collaborate, and have shut down several such criminal networks each year. They have a permanent task force, CIRCAMP, dedicated to this.
In 2010 the European Union even updated and increased the powers of the police to respond to online grooming, the absence of positive identification of child victims, criminalizing offences committed abroad, protecting victims by giving them further legal protections and creating prevention programmes for past offenders.
I remember learning in school that the only effective way to stop the production and distribution [of drugs] was to target the market.
If you attack the producers, someone will replace them soon enough. However if you remove the market, reducing the demand, production and profits will naturally stop.
Of course that doesn't mean it won't still happen, but at least there won't be "inspiration" available.
Mac OS X is not BSD.
Many buzzwords are associated with Mac OS X: Mach kernel, microkernel, FreeBSD kernel, C++, 64 bit, UNIX... and while all of these apply in some way, "XNU", the Mac OS X kernel is neither Mach, nor FreeBSD-based, it's not a microkernel, it's not written in C++ and it's not 64 bit - but it is UNIX... but just since recently.
This video and powerpoint clears up the confusion by presenting details of the Mac OS X kernel architecture, its components Mach, BSD and I/O-Kit, what's so different and special about this design, and what the special strengths of it are.
The simulation is a European project, part of the FuturICT-programme, a part of the European Union research framework programme.
It intends to unify hundreds of the best scientists in Europe in a 10 year 1 billion EUR program to explore social life on earth and everything it relates to. The FuturICT flagship will produce historic breakthroughs and provide powerful new ways to manage challenges that make the modern world so difficult to predict, including the financial crisis.
The FuturICT Knowledge Accelerator is a previously unseen multidisciplinary international scientific endeavour with focus on techno-socio-economic-environmental systems. The three main achievements of the FuturICT flagship will be the establishment of
- a Living Earth Simulator (global-scale simulation of techno-socio-economic systems),
- Crisis Observatories (for financial instabilities, scarcity of resources, emerging risks and conflicts, epidemics, etc.), and
- an Innovation Accelerator (identifying innovations early on, evaluating them across disciplines and supporting co-creation projects between different scientific disciplines, business, and governance).
I see you failed to comment or notice the fact that a great many of the countries with the highest income and longest life expectancy are in fact European countries with heavy market regulation (social-democracies). Some of the richest and most productive nations happen to be the Northern European countries which are very "socialist" [in American terms]. In Scandinavia we tend to see ourselves as the "third way", a balanced mix of both systems.
I'm not advocating any ideology or economic system but I think your conclusion is a bit one sided and not in line with the facts.
P.S. I'm a citizen of a wealthy, social-democratic, Scandinavian nation, according to the OECD the citizens of my country are more productive than the average US citizen (127%). You can look up the data yourself at http://stats.oecd.org/ and the report "Productivity levels and GDP per capita".