Funny, a lot of the "fascism" charges that I find reasonable on the left are alleging that the deregulatory spree the right has been on promotes corporatism.
It's certainly a far cry from the "fascism" charges tossed back to the left based on Jonah Goldberg's revisionist history.
Ars has a story about Google funding the TheorARM project. One huge weakness with Theora (technicals aside) is the dearth of support on mobile devices.
This, and the open release of VP8, are very much welcome news to the FOSS community.
You laugh, but before they got squeezed by the DOJ, Microsoft threatened OEMs that it would deny them any discounts (read: they would hike prices) of Microsoft software if they dared to let any competing OS be installed on their products-- even multiple boot. Your hypothetical, if hyperbolic, scenario never had a chance to happen because of this.
I wonder if those in agreement with this line of thought think that grades "earned" in this way are in any way a reflection of what the kid learned? If the money earned correlates with the grades, why not dispense with the idea of grading and degrees/diplomas and just toss them in an office where they can get paid to do busy work?
And FYI, many a great inventor or artist did their craft hard not because they were paid to do it, but because they loved what they did. Yes, you can get cynical on us and say that 99% of the people out there don't have that option, but what this educational incentive can do is kill off the remaining 1% who dare to dream and risk it all.
I'm pretty sure this is an argument of composition-- just because you believe that Android's fragmentation is a disadvantage compared to the iPhone's platform, doesn't mean that all, or even a majority of, mobile devs believe this-- barring rigorous polling and statistical analysis, of course. Furthermore, you said you develop for.NET and iPhone, but not Android, so I'm guessing you don't have as much insight into that ecosystem as an actual Android dev would.
I've only toyed with the Android SDK, and it's pretty clear from what I've seen that one can build their apps for specific handsets, rather than all of them, which can render the development time argument moot. Any experienced UI designer can create an interface that will look great on the Nexus One or Droid and yet degrade gracefully on a G1. It's only a piece of the market rather than a whole, but it's a good start to a successful app, and if the app/SDK is designed well, UI porting to other handsets doesn't mean the whole thing has to be rewritten every time.
It's also interesting that you apparently don't see the plethora of Android handsets at various price points on every mobile network under the sun, but whose applications are largely inter-compatible (well, about as well as applications written for Windows) as a huge advantage for Android. If all of the players (HTC, Motorola, etc. etc.) play their cards right, iPhone may face an attack of a thousand cuts.
But it's not like Google has helped Android devs and users much, though-- the Android Market is inferior to iTunes on multiple levels, and the king of search engines for some inexplicable reason has yet to release a search engine for the Market that resembles anything like the great shopping cart/metadata apps of sites like Amazon and NewEgg. Thus, app selection is largely word of mouth on Android forums or trial and error, which is not an auspicious combination.
I also can see your point, but more from the perspective of a businessman rather than a developer-- why should you incur the cost of picking up Android when you've already invested so much time and skill development in iPhone? That's certainly a much more reasonable (and IMO believable) argument to make than "Android doesn't attract developers because it's fragmented and doesn't have good SDK tools".
You appear to be making an argument from ubiquity. Observe:
Linux lost because it wasn't as good as Windows and it's still not as good as Windows bit for bit. The only reason why the opensource world support it isn't because it's better, but because it's the only "open source friendly" option. Sorry, but that just because it fits an idelogoy (sic) doesn't mean much to the part of the world that uses the product. It's like suggesting that a professional 3D/video shop use Blender instead of Maya or Cinelerra instead of Final Cut Pro or Avid. The professionals are going to take a look at it for a while and go, "Nice toy, now I've got to get back to work."
If the opensource world wants Linux to succeed, you're going to have to produce something that's better than Windows end of story. Until then the people are working in business are going to continue using Windows because it's everywhere and is currently the best mainstream operating systems available.
I worked in Video production in the late 90's through about 2005. Windows was a godsend when we finally had a single OS that was adopted by pretty much all recording hardware and editing software. Before it was OS Hell. Nobody I talk to in the industry, and I still have a lot of friends who work everywhere from their basement to large production shops, have any interest in embracing Linux or anything else. They only want to support 1 OS that works everywhere, and that's Windows. Even if it costs them a little bit of money. Because whatever it costs them is likely cheaper than the headaches of having to support multiple platforms.
Now, if Linux or some other patent free platform gets to the point where it can offer at least the same (really it has to be BETTER than Windowsin features and quality) only then will the production houses be interested in switching. And by better, offer at least the same quality as Windows.
Theora lost because it wasn't as good as H.264 and it's still not as good as H.264 bit for bit.
I agree that H.264 is superior to Theora in several respects, but your third paragraph suggests that it was ubiquity, not quality, to which it owes its popularity among professionals.
Of course politicians like outrage, it makes people easier to manipulate.
They like outrage because they think it makes people easier to manipulate. The reality is, outrage is a fickle beast and can be used against those who would seek to manipulate it.
The CEO did not dispatch a personal assistant to stand in line so he could have his own iPad without the need to stand in line with those filthy "commoners".
I'm as much a believer in Hanlon's Razor as you appear to be, but come on, if I were the CEO of Verizon and didn't have the time to stand in line, I'd offer a little something extra to the guys who are getting a few units for the R&D guys to get me an extra iPad.
It's as if our government signed an alliance with the Ferengi, hoping to get in on the profits.
That, or I've been watching too much Star Trek. (That said, the Ferengi are a great insight into the <s>libertarian</s> "free market conservative" mind...)
I don't think that you can make yogurt with Z. galactanivorans, since that would require (a) digesting lactose to lactic acid, and (b) surviving the resulting acidity. You're much better off with a straight culture or eating the seaweed directly as you posted.
Kelp (konbu), wakame and mekabu might have the bacteria in question as spores-- but they're probably killed in the cooking process. Same for nori, as roasting is usually a part of the preparation. I think your best bet may be mozuku, as that is usually fresh, if packaged in a dilute vinegar solution.
A word of caution though-- it's got the sliminess of okra. Other than that, it's tasty stuff.
Speaking as a devil's advocate (but to support your position):
For the opponents of sex ed, the thought of people having sex outside of wedlock is anathema-- and so you can imagine the neurotic seizure they would get when it's suggested that their children will do this, even if they themselves did it and had fun. To them, control and machismo is everything (even if they don't realize it-- their codewords are "discipline" and "strength"), and to them, you and I are advocating mere mitigation to something they find wholly unacceptable-- even if said mitigation results in a decrease in teenage sex.
And thus, in so many minds of those who would call themselves "conservative", teaching kids about safe ways to have sex amounts to capitulation. Some bring it so far as to believe conspiracy theories like NWO, but by and large it's an offense to their worldview and their sense of strength.
It's not enough to scoff at them in comment threads-- I've done my fair share of that, and I know it's futile to convince them in that way. We must find ways of working with them to reduce teen promiscuity, because frankly, a lot of teens are too effin' stupid to realize the consequences of some of the things they do.
I mean he's actually saying that teaching a kid how to use a condom encourages the kid to seek out becoming a rape victim?! HOW?!
Presumably under Wisconsin law, anyone who messes with a kid (even if it's someone the same age) gets hit with statutory rape charges. This DA simply wants to pad his resume.
Fraud is easy to prosecute if it's one guy (see: Bernie Madoff), but a conspiracy changes the game completely because now it becomes a question of intent. The defense could easily assemble the co-conspirators and their employees to corroborate a story together, forcing the prosecutor to try to prove that everyone in the company was a co-conspirator.
Partial patent portfolio invalidation, though tempting, is probably not on the books (IANAL), and would probably be radical enough to be struck down on appeal. Same for the employment quota you proposed.
The answer is well-designed regulations on large-cap corporations, including tough sanctions and regulators who aren't industry plants and/or sponsored by their industries. That's the main reason the free-market conservatives are howling bloody murder over regulatory reform-- they want the corporations to keep their cushy status above any form of reprisal for wrongdoing.
I know that DNA testing was a huge breakthrough that solved a great many cases that were previously unsolvable, but it's not like police never got convictions before then. So why is this law enforcement organization apparently so dependent on DNA testing that they comparatively look like idiots when something like this foils the DNA evidence?
Surely they have other evidence at the crime scene, or in plain sight on the suspect(s). If one of the twins left blood, one of them was probably wounded by the broken glass. There may be glass particles in the perpetrator's clothing*, etc.
Spineless... or criminally negligent. And yeah, there can be a difference.
This incident reminds me of the "bullying problem" that plagues Japanese schools (their media doesn't report on it anymore, which is unsurprising as they're the Asian equivalent of UK news sans BBC). The similarity is mainly that a bunch of kids team up to make life miserable for their target, and school officials are either clueless or don't lift a damn finger to stop them-- in the worst cases, the bullies essentially run the schoolyard because the faculty is hogtied by their parents from actually disciplining the kids (the "my little angel couldn't possibly be a bully" complex).
And now to demonstrate that I'm not a lawyer, because I just remembered:
Hell, you don't even need a summary judgment to get such an order-- you might get a preliminary injunction against removing the functionality of installing alternate operating systems on the PS3. This might depend on how slick/organized the plaintiff counsel is, but it's well within the realm of possibility, I think.
IANAL, this is not legal advice, blah blah blah...
The judge can (depending on the trial, of course) order Sony to reinstate the functionality, in addition to damages. That might sound heavy-handed, but if the point was restoration, this would be entirely reasonable-- it's not like he would be telling Sony to open up the PS3 to black hats.
You might see a class-action suit as a way for lawyers to leech money off of consumers, but they are a powerful tool against big corporations. They, as a rule, do not want a class-action to go to trial, because the consequences of losing are so big. In fact, the $10 vouchers you mentioned are more often than not a result of settlement agreements between the parties, not summary judgments.
Back when I was a teenager, I got my first job in radio by hanging around the station constantly. I took out the trash. I annoyed the engineer and asked a thousand questions. I was willing to do anything to prove that I wanted the job.
Sometimes that's a good way to shoehorn yourself into a job, as this woman can tell you.
Of course, that depends on the company; some will just kick you to the curb.
An addendum for the submitter: If you have skills other than programming (second spoken/written non-programming language is often a great bonus here), make sure the temp/employment agency knows this! The agencies that provide jobs for ethnic communities can turn that into additional leverage. I got my job in early '07 this way, mere months before the recession officially began, and I'm still employed despite my quirks. It's a lot like fishing-- if you know a certain company is hiring, put down the things you've worked with that might interest them. If you're in a rural area and you know how farm equipment works, you may land a job as an IT intern for Caterpillar, for example. (Just don't lie or exaggerate beyond what you're capable of. That would be much worse, since the company that then fires you can really poison the well against you when you look for the next job.)
Your problems with HR departments accepting your resume and nothing further may be a problem with the resume-- though that's a lot more valid when companies are actually hiring... Try to follow up with HR on the phone if you can, without being too pushy.
Also, don't restrict yourself to simply job-hunting as your job. Make it part-time, say, 4-5 hours a day and spend 3-4 hours reading up on relevant skills-- database admin if you're going for a datacenter/warehouse job, software engineering, additional programming languages, etc., etc. I'm assuming you don't have the capital for certifications (which, while little more than an SAT II for adults, practically speaking, is more leverage to use on HR departments and managers), so hit up the library and practice what you can on your own PC. If you can afford a class or two at the local community college, give that a try.
And above all: keep your head high even in this bleak labor market. Yeah, a lot of the IT jobs were lost to China and India, but sooner or later companies will realize that there are some problems outsourcing simply cannot solve on the cheap. You'll want to position yourself so that you're among the people they look at when they start hiring again.
Don't make the slightest effort to help them and don't release anything (well, on the other hand, they don't send Cease and Desist letters at least).
They do have legal standing to do so, but I'm hoping they wait too long to exercise it-- then a neat legal penalty called "you waited too long, so you're SOL on your infringement claim", i.e. laches comes into play there.
In the cathedral you simply issue directives how to do it, and it gets done exactly to your requirements (if not, they fix it until you like it.) In the bazaar you only can voice your opinion, and everyone else is free to ignore it.
I'm sorry, but that sounds awfully bogus. What you're saying is that the OSS development model precludes the project management from establishing a code/design standard for patches, or from rejecting patches that do not conform to those standards. I find it very hard to believe that a competent OSS project lead would not at least have these in place for the main, project/company-supported code. Hell, I find it even harder to believe that Linus Torvalds and his crew would manage the Linux kernel like that-- there's a reason why he's called a "benevolent dictator".
In general, if the project lead's standards are too restrictive for the community, the community forks the project, and that could conceivably result in some risk to the company. But "officially supported" has much greater weight when it comes to projects like this, so the ultimate goal in such a case would be to find the advantages of each fork and incorporate them into the mainline source code-- if the forks are similarly licensed, this is not an issue at all, unless the company/project lead is patently unwilling to accept anything other than sponsored code (see: why X.org forked). Moreover, I just don't see where things like asking submitters to adhere to industry standards would be a fork-worthy obstacle.
As result, if bazaar members are not as competent with this particular problem as you are, you may watch them making the same mistakes that you did 10 years ago.
Emphasis mine. What you are implying here is that community coders are a high enough risk that they should be excluded, but on the assumption that the project lead and/or the company's coders are sufficiently competent. Neither of these may be the case, yet you argue that any company would be unwilling to take that risk. This may be true in NVidia's case, but I doubt it is true for the general case. (Long story short: Beware of turning a possibility ("There exists") into a certainty ("For all/every"))
A "what if someone did find a cure for cancer" drama aired recently on the Japanese cable/satellite network called Pandora. If something so valuable and industry-altering a cure was discovered, there will be no shortage of politicians and faculty who will try to use it for personal gain, nor will there be a shortage of corporations who wish to maximize its sale while minimizing the royalties and labor. Other references to opening the Pandora's Box of fixing "faults" that make us human as much as our intellect does include Gundam SEED* and the Eugenics Wars/Augments theme in the Star Trek franchise. Admittedly these are works of fiction that flesh out the discussion by taking the consequences to their extremes, but it demonstrates that a society where genetically superior humans become a sort of oppressive "master race" is not at all hard to imagine.
Put simply, if we are to venture into improving our genetic selves in ways other than natural selection, not asking the "stupid, half-witted, pseudo-concern" questions merely because the answer seems obvious at the time may be the more irresponsible of paths.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny, a lot of the "fascism" charges that I find reasonable on the left are alleging that the deregulatory spree the right has been on promotes corporatism.
It's certainly a far cry from the "fascism" charges tossed back to the left based on Jonah Goldberg's revisionist history.
Ars has a story about Google funding the TheorARM project. One huge weakness with Theora (technicals aside) is the dearth of support on mobile devices.
This, and the open release of VP8, are very much welcome news to the FOSS community.
You laugh, but before they got squeezed by the DOJ, Microsoft threatened OEMs that it would deny them any discounts (read: they would hike prices) of Microsoft software if they dared to let any competing OS be installed on their products-- even multiple boot. Your hypothetical, if hyperbolic, scenario never had a chance to happen because of this.
You could ask M5 to mod your car.
The roof mod is extra, though.
It sounds like legalese for "we don't have a breach of contract case against them".
That, or Activision's counsel is the stereotypical sleazy lawyer...
I wonder if those in agreement with this line of thought think that grades "earned" in this way are in any way a reflection of what the kid learned? If the money earned correlates with the grades, why not dispense with the idea of grading and degrees/diplomas and just toss them in an office where they can get paid to do busy work?
And FYI, many a great inventor or artist did their craft hard not because they were paid to do it, but because they loved what they did. Yes, you can get cynical on us and say that 99% of the people out there don't have that option, but what this educational incentive can do is kill off the remaining 1% who dare to dream and risk it all.
I'm pretty sure this is an argument of composition-- just because you believe that Android's fragmentation is a disadvantage compared to the iPhone's platform, doesn't mean that all, or even a majority of, mobile devs believe this-- barring rigorous polling and statistical analysis, of course. Furthermore, you said you develop for .NET and iPhone, but not Android, so I'm guessing you don't have as much insight into that ecosystem as an actual Android dev would.
I've only toyed with the Android SDK, and it's pretty clear from what I've seen that one can build their apps for specific handsets, rather than all of them, which can render the development time argument moot. Any experienced UI designer can create an interface that will look great on the Nexus One or Droid and yet degrade gracefully on a G1. It's only a piece of the market rather than a whole, but it's a good start to a successful app, and if the app/SDK is designed well, UI porting to other handsets doesn't mean the whole thing has to be rewritten every time.
It's also interesting that you apparently don't see the plethora of Android handsets at various price points on every mobile network under the sun, but whose applications are largely inter-compatible (well, about as well as applications written for Windows) as a huge advantage for Android. If all of the players (HTC, Motorola, etc. etc.) play their cards right, iPhone may face an attack of a thousand cuts.
But it's not like Google has helped Android devs and users much, though-- the Android Market is inferior to iTunes on multiple levels, and the king of search engines for some inexplicable reason has yet to release a search engine for the Market that resembles anything like the great shopping cart/metadata apps of sites like Amazon and NewEgg. Thus, app selection is largely word of mouth on Android forums or trial and error, which is not an auspicious combination.
I also can see your point, but more from the perspective of a businessman rather than a developer-- why should you incur the cost of picking up Android when you've already invested so much time and skill development in iPhone? That's certainly a much more reasonable (and IMO believable) argument to make than "Android doesn't attract developers because it's fragmented and doesn't have good SDK tools".
You appear to be making an argument from ubiquity. Observe:
I agree that H.264 is superior to Theora in several respects, but your third paragraph suggests that it was ubiquity, not quality, to which it owes its popularity among professionals.
They like outrage because they think it makes people easier to manipulate. The reality is, outrage is a fickle beast and can be used against those who would seek to manipulate it.
I'm as much a believer in Hanlon's Razor as you appear to be, but come on, if I were the CEO of Verizon and didn't have the time to stand in line, I'd offer a little something extra to the guys who are getting a few units for the R&D guys to get me an extra iPad.
It's as if our government signed an alliance with the Ferengi, hoping to get in on the profits.
That, or I've been watching too much Star Trek. (That said, the Ferengi are a great insight into the <s>libertarian</s> "free market conservative" mind...)
I don't think that you can make yogurt with Z. galactanivorans, since that would require (a) digesting lactose to lactic acid, and (b) surviving the resulting acidity. You're much better off with a straight culture or eating the seaweed directly as you posted.
Kelp (konbu), wakame and mekabu might have the bacteria in question as spores-- but they're probably killed in the cooking process. Same for nori, as roasting is usually a part of the preparation. I think your best bet may be mozuku, as that is usually fresh, if packaged in a dilute vinegar solution.
A word of caution though-- it's got the sliminess of okra. Other than that, it's tasty stuff.
Okay, those 2 comments combined brought up the SNL yoga sketch with Will Ferrell...
Speaking as a devil's advocate (but to support your position):
For the opponents of sex ed, the thought of people having sex outside of wedlock is anathema-- and so you can imagine the neurotic seizure they would get when it's suggested that their children will do this, even if they themselves did it and had fun. To them, control and machismo is everything (even if they don't realize it-- their codewords are "discipline" and "strength"), and to them, you and I are advocating mere mitigation to something they find wholly unacceptable-- even if said mitigation results in a decrease in teenage sex.
And thus, in so many minds of those who would call themselves "conservative", teaching kids about safe ways to have sex amounts to capitulation. Some bring it so far as to believe conspiracy theories like NWO, but by and large it's an offense to their worldview and their sense of strength.
It's not enough to scoff at them in comment threads-- I've done my fair share of that, and I know it's futile to convince them in that way. We must find ways of working with them to reduce teen promiscuity, because frankly, a lot of teens are too effin' stupid to realize the consequences of some of the things they do.
Presumably under Wisconsin law, anyone who messes with a kid (even if it's someone the same age) gets hit with statutory rape charges. This DA simply wants to pad his resume.
Fraud is easy to prosecute if it's one guy (see: Bernie Madoff), but a conspiracy changes the game completely because now it becomes a question of intent. The defense could easily assemble the co-conspirators and their employees to corroborate a story together, forcing the prosecutor to try to prove that everyone in the company was a co-conspirator.
Partial patent portfolio invalidation, though tempting, is probably not on the books (IANAL), and would probably be radical enough to be struck down on appeal. Same for the employment quota you proposed.
The answer is well-designed regulations on large-cap corporations, including tough sanctions and regulators who aren't industry plants and/or sponsored by their industries. That's the main reason the free-market conservatives are howling bloody murder over regulatory reform-- they want the corporations to keep their cushy status above any form of reprisal for wrongdoing.
I know that DNA testing was a huge breakthrough that solved a great many cases that were previously unsolvable, but it's not like police never got convictions before then. So why is this law enforcement organization apparently so dependent on DNA testing that they comparatively look like idiots when something like this foils the DNA evidence?
Surely they have other evidence at the crime scene, or in plain sight on the suspect(s). If one of the twins left blood, one of them was probably wounded by the broken glass. There may be glass particles in the perpetrator's clothing*, etc.
* Yes, I watched too much CSI...
Spineless... or criminally negligent. And yeah, there can be a difference.
This incident reminds me of the "bullying problem" that plagues Japanese schools (their media doesn't report on it anymore, which is unsurprising as they're the Asian equivalent of UK news sans BBC). The similarity is mainly that a bunch of kids team up to make life miserable for their target, and school officials are either clueless or don't lift a damn finger to stop them-- in the worst cases, the bullies essentially run the schoolyard because the faculty is hogtied by their parents from actually disciplining the kids (the "my little angel couldn't possibly be a bully" complex).
And now to demonstrate that I'm not a lawyer, because I just remembered:
Hell, you don't even need a summary judgment to get such an order-- you might get a preliminary injunction against removing the functionality of installing alternate operating systems on the PS3. This might depend on how slick/organized the plaintiff counsel is, but it's well within the realm of possibility, I think.
IANAL, this is not legal advice, blah blah blah...
The judge can (depending on the trial, of course) order Sony to reinstate the functionality, in addition to damages. That might sound heavy-handed, but if the point was restoration, this would be entirely reasonable-- it's not like he would be telling Sony to open up the PS3 to black hats.
You might see a class-action suit as a way for lawyers to leech money off of consumers, but they are a powerful tool against big corporations. They, as a rule, do not want a class-action to go to trial, because the consequences of losing are so big. In fact, the $10 vouchers you mentioned are more often than not a result of settlement agreements between the parties, not summary judgments.
Sometimes that's a good way to shoehorn yourself into a job, as this woman can tell you.
Of course, that depends on the company; some will just kick you to the curb.
An addendum for the submitter: If you have skills other than programming (second spoken/written non-programming language is often a great bonus here), make sure the temp/employment agency knows this! The agencies that provide jobs for ethnic communities can turn that into additional leverage. I got my job in early '07 this way, mere months before the recession officially began, and I'm still employed despite my quirks. It's a lot like fishing-- if you know a certain company is hiring, put down the things you've worked with that might interest them. If you're in a rural area and you know how farm equipment works, you may land a job as an IT intern for Caterpillar, for example. (Just don't lie or exaggerate beyond what you're capable of. That would be much worse, since the company that then fires you can really poison the well against you when you look for the next job.)
Your problems with HR departments accepting your resume and nothing further may be a problem with the resume-- though that's a lot more valid when companies are actually hiring... Try to follow up with HR on the phone if you can, without being too pushy.
Also, don't restrict yourself to simply job-hunting as your job. Make it part-time, say, 4-5 hours a day and spend 3-4 hours reading up on relevant skills-- database admin if you're going for a datacenter/warehouse job, software engineering, additional programming languages, etc., etc. I'm assuming you don't have the capital for certifications (which, while little more than an SAT II for adults, practically speaking, is more leverage to use on HR departments and managers), so hit up the library and practice what you can on your own PC. If you can afford a class or two at the local community college, give that a try.
And above all: keep your head high even in this bleak labor market. Yeah, a lot of the IT jobs were lost to China and India, but sooner or later companies will realize that there are some problems outsourcing simply cannot solve on the cheap. You'll want to position yourself so that you're among the people they look at when they start hiring again.
They do have legal standing to do so, but I'm hoping they wait too long to exercise it-- then a neat legal penalty called "you waited too long, so you're SOL on your infringement claim", i.e. laches comes into play there.
I'm sorry, but that sounds awfully bogus. What you're saying is that the OSS development model precludes the project management from establishing a code/design standard for patches, or from rejecting patches that do not conform to those standards. I find it very hard to believe that a competent OSS project lead would not at least have these in place for the main, project/company-supported code. Hell, I find it even harder to believe that Linus Torvalds and his crew would manage the Linux kernel like that-- there's a reason why he's called a "benevolent dictator".
In general, if the project lead's standards are too restrictive for the community, the community forks the project, and that could conceivably result in some risk to the company. But "officially supported" has much greater weight when it comes to projects like this, so the ultimate goal in such a case would be to find the advantages of each fork and incorporate them into the mainline source code-- if the forks are similarly licensed, this is not an issue at all, unless the company/project lead is patently unwilling to accept anything other than sponsored code (see: why X.org forked). Moreover, I just don't see where things like asking submitters to adhere to industry standards would be a fork-worthy obstacle.
Emphasis mine. What you are implying here is that community coders are a high enough risk that they should be excluded, but on the assumption that the project lead and/or the company's coders are sufficiently competent. Neither of these may be the case, yet you argue that any company would be unwilling to take that risk. This may be true in NVidia's case, but I doubt it is true for the general case. (Long story short: Beware of turning a possibility ("There exists") into a certainty ("For all/every"))
A "what if someone did find a cure for cancer" drama aired recently on the Japanese cable/satellite network called Pandora. If something so valuable and industry-altering a cure was discovered, there will be no shortage of politicians and faculty who will try to use it for personal gain, nor will there be a shortage of corporations who wish to maximize its sale while minimizing the royalties and labor. Other references to opening the Pandora's Box of fixing "faults" that make us human as much as our intellect does include Gundam SEED* and the Eugenics Wars/Augments theme in the Star Trek franchise. Admittedly these are works of fiction that flesh out the discussion by taking the consequences to their extremes, but it demonstrates that a society where genetically superior humans become a sort of oppressive "master race" is not at all hard to imagine.
Put simply, if we are to venture into improving our genetic selves in ways other than natural selection, not asking the "stupid, half-witted, pseudo-concern" questions merely because the answer seems obvious at the time may be the more irresponsible of paths.