For example, are Greeks "white"? Specifically, were the Classical Greeks "white"?
As white as they come. That was never even an issue before the 19th century and the English racial theories of anglo-saxon superiority.The Greeks in particular are the fathers of European civilization. They weren't "white enough" for scholars in a time when "scholars" were all from the Anglosphere, and took the word white to mean some arbitrary paleness. The Celts were actually thought to be "africans" by some scholars, also to suport a political superiority of England, in this case a justification of colonialism in Ireland and Wales:
He believed that eye colour and hair colour were valuable evidence in the origins of the British people. He published The Races of Britain: A Contribution to the Anthropology of Western Europe in 1862 and again in 1885 and 1905 and again in 1971. Beddoe wrote in his that all geniuses were "orthognathous" (that is, have receding jaws) while the Irish and the Welsh were "prognathous" (have large jaws). Beddoe also maintained that Celts were similar to Cromagnon man, and Cromagnon man was similar to the "Africanoid" race. Celts in Beddoe's "Index of Negrescence" are very different than Anglo-Saxons.
Greece and Antient Greeks are if anything the archetypal Europeans, and thus, again, as white as one can be when talking about a ethnocultural sense of "race"; they have been "attacked" nowadays by the descendents of the Bedoe fellow I quote above that say that modern Greeks are mixed with Turks: this is a sort of acusation that stems from the 19th century as well, and also disregards the fact that it's actually the Turkish area that has a lot of Greek input due to Magna Grecia and the Byzantine Empire.
Bear in mind that this is, for example, similar to the "Black Lengend" against the Spanish (and by contact Iberians as a whole): the English - and Americans inherited this probably due to the Spanish American War. To quote Spain's Long Shadow: The Black Legend, Off-Whiteness, and Anglo-American Empire synopsis:
Reveals the dependence of American ethnic identity on Spain as an imperial alter-ego.
England and the Netherlands, Spain's imperial rivals of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, imagined Spain as a land of cruel and degenerate barbarians of la leyenda negra (the Black Legend), in league with the powers of "blackest darkness" and driven by "dark motives." In Spain's Long Shadow, María DeGuzmán explores how this convenient demonization made its way into American culture--and proved essential to the construction of whiteness.
DeGuzmán's work reaches from the late eighteenth century--in the wake of the American Revolution--to the present. Surveying a broad range of texts and images from Poe's "William Wilson" and John Singer Sargent's El Jaleo to Richard Wright's "Pagan Spain" and Kathy Acker's Don Quixote, Spain's Long Shadow shows how the creation of Anglo-American ethnicity as specifically American has depended on the casting of Spain as a colonial alter ego. The symbolic power of Spain in the American imagination, DeGuzmán argues, is not just a legacy of that nation's colonial presence in the Americas; it lives on as well in the "blackness" of Spain and Spaniards--in the assigning of people of Spanish origin to an "off-white" racial category that reserves the designation of white for Anglo-Americans.
By demonstrating how the Anglo-American imagination needs Spain and Spaniards as figures of attraction and repulsion, DeGuzmán makes a compelling and illuminating case for treating Spain as the imperial alter ego of the United States. Cross-cultural and interdisciplinary, ambitious in its chronological sweep, and elegant in its interpretation of literary and visual works, DeGuzmán's book leads us to a powerful new understanding of the nature--and history--of American ethnicity.
Eheheh, that reminds me a perl of anglo-saxon racial mythology:
"Which leads me to add one Remark: That the Number of purely white People in
the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia
chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in
Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of
what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only
excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the
Face of the Earth." Benjamim Franklin
So, to ol' Ben you're "tawny". I'm even in worse conditions, since I would probably be a hit-n-miss between tawny, swarthy, "hispanic" or "latino" (this last two by name alone).
That being said "white" is an historical construct onlyif you use the WASPish and/or nordicist redefinition of the term. It was already - and still is in most of the world - used to denote people of European descent. While there are grey areas the range itself (i.e. europoid people leaving outside of Europe) is more or less well defined in a racial sense. In general the discoverers you mention did view both africans and native americans as different in a racial perspective, going so far has having precise names for the resulting offspring according to the "mixture".
Yeah, flax seed oil is a safer bet, true. Nanotubes are as you said still a bit unstable - know a guy who grew muscle in his eyebrow due to it - but they show great promise, the creatine of the XXI century some say.
Do a google search with "fructose glycogen liver" or some variants. I'm not an expert but fructose replenishes liver glycogen more than muscle glycogen, and apparently when the liver glycogen is replenished the body halts the anabolic process also for the muscle, and thus the carbs are converted to fat. This is one explanation, and is part of the reason while ideally post workout shakes do not contain fructose, or contain little of it, and prefer glucose and maltodextrose. For endurance training fructose seems to be good, because it takes longer to process.
This is just a bit of hearsay after reading several sources. I still agree with the previous post about caloric intake: it's easy to "blame" fructose - and I know of people that take this as an excuse to cut on fruit, but continue to devour a quarterpounder a day - but in reality it's the overall calory intake tha vastly exceeds the basal rate of the body - especially important since most people don't do any kind of physical exercise.
Actually, a small correction to my previous reply: I do care a bit about Apple, in the sense that I care about OpenStep and Apple is the official steward of it with Cocoa. So, in a way, I'm tehcnological closer to Apple tham most non-Apple users.
Hey, it happens. It was a convulted history in any event, and I only know something about it because it's a technology I'm interested in, and I remember the tales about eh Jobs vs. RMS interactions regarding this, you can imagine the sparks:)
You assume to much, and take advantage of that assumptions to vent something about the FSF and the GPL. I don't have a "ridiculous meme" about Apple, I don't even care that much about Apple in the first place, for good *or* bad.
If they released the code under a BSDish licence, then great, I stand corrected and I applaud Apple, well done. So, the rest of your comment about divious plans for world dominination by FSF drones and the always repeated nonsense about the "truely free" BSD licence is more a reflection of your own zealotry then anything else.
Sorry, but you're wrong. NeXTStep used GCC, I know because I have used it in a Cube and it's right here mentioned in the NeXTStep programming manual. StepStone did have a compiler though.
From the comp.lang.objective-c FAQ:
Objective-C was developed by Brad Cox, who founded the Stepstone
corporation in 1983 to develop and support the language, a compiler,
and supporting libraries. Stepstone never really made it big,
fostering Objective-C in a niche similar to that of Smalltalk.
In 1985, Steve Jobs left Apple and started NeXT, a company that
developed m68k machines and the NeXTSTEP operating system. The user
interface of these machines was provided by Display PostScript and the
AppKit, which, written in Objective-C, made Objective-C the language of
choice on NeXT computers.
Brad Cox and Andrew Novobilski write `Object Oriented Programming: An
Evolutionary Approach' in 1986, the first book on Objective-C.
NEXTSTEP 1.0a was released in 1989. The Objective-C compiler is based
on gcc 1.34.
In 1991, the Objective-C related modifications by NeXT to gcc find
their way back into the FSF GNU CC distribution. By version 1.99, gcc
(the compiler) supports Objective-C.
NEXTSTEP 3.0 is released in 1992. The compiler supports Objective-C++,
and the Objective-C language has been extended with `@protocol'.
In the same year, gcc 2.0 comes supplied with an Objective-C runtime
library.
In 1993, gcc supports protocols by version 2.4. NeXT stops the
production of hardware. With NEXTSTEP 3.1 they include support for
PC's. NeXT starts creating other products not bound to a particular
operating system, such as Portable Distributed Objects (PDO), which
comes with its own Objective-C compiler and debugger.
OPENSTEP, an Objective-C API, is made public in 1994.
NEXTSTEP 3.3 is released in 1995; it adds support for HP hppa and Sun
sparc machines. Also in this year, NeXT acquires all rights to the
Objective-C programming language and trademark from Stepstone.
Sun includes support for Objective-C++ in their SparcCompiler in 1996.
They release OPENSTEP for Solaris. NeXT releases OPENSTEP 4.0 for PC
hardware. Support for hppa and sparc has vanished. OPENSTEP for
Windows NT is released.
Early 1997, Apple acquires NeXT and starts work on the next Macintosh
operating system, code named Rhapsody, based on the technology they got
from NeXT. In the same year, Sun fosters the success of Java and
subsequently kills OPENSTEP for Solaris.
I'm not saying they were jerks about it, or about anything else. They made a decision to use GCC which was perhaps not their ideal choice in terms of the control they had, but they did their part and with time I think that they began to see that the perceived downsides of using a GPL'ed compiler were not that many and that there were many other upsides they hadn't antecipated. I'm just saying that all things being the same I think that Apple would prefer to use a compiler in which it didn't have to share the changes (even if they ended up doing it). Until then I have little doubt that Apple devs will continue to do their work on GCC, which is great for everyone, especially those of us that use Objective-C.
Well, ehe, I do, and GNUStep does. But even is the language itself isn't mainstream outside of Apple nowadays, the point is that people can program in it because of the way things went, even if it's not a very popular language.
But in Darwin I think that you can se that the "juicy" parts are not made available, at least that was my recollection of it. Still, I had forgotten about Darwin and that is indeed a good example of sharing without needing.
They knew all that, of course. "Hate" is perhaps to strong a word, but consider this: when NeXT needed a compiler for Objective-C they were in a situation were they either used GCC - and the FSF refused the offers to allow any kind of exemption (IIRC money offers were included) - or developed one. They did what was best for them, and used GCC. This doesn't mean that they were happy with the situation: the Objective-C and NeXTStep (nowadays also called Cocoa)were for many - me included - *the* major selling point of NeXT (perhaps more so than the great UI), and you can imagine that Jobs wouldn't be to happy with having a fundamental part of it not entirely under his control.
So, they knew, and still know, what they were getting in to, and honestly perhaps nowadays they don't care as much, as I said they aided the Objective-C++ patches into the main tree and have many devs in the GCC team. But still, I think that they would *prefer* to have a compiler that was completely under their control,one which they could release or not release changes as they see fit.
I heard the same, and a BSD-licenced front-end would fit Apple well, at least to use it. Again, I remain skeptical about they actually maintaining a BSD front-end and completely sharing their work - as opposed to using BSD code to make their own closed version. But if that's the plan, then it's good news for everyone.
I know that Apple if active in GCC development. They are putting work into it, and work which I personally take advantage of and I am particulary thankful for. That's no the question though... Apple has done one nice thing, which was working with the rest of the GCC team to integrate their changes: they are *not* required to do this by the GPL. This is great, mainly for Objective-C support, and also for Apple since they can reap the beneficts of other changes in newer GCC versions. The thing is, when all is said and done they do part of this because they are required to by the GPL. I'm not at all sure they would do the same if they weren't required to, and with LLVM they are aiming at not depending on GCC and call their own shots (undertandable from a business POV, even though they could more or less do the same with GCC given their involvement).
In the end it's a matter of control: Apple contributes to GCC but I think they feel a bit "forced" to do it, and would prefer to work on something of their own, something which they could control what parts get shared and which don't, and under which terms.
Yes, thanks, as I said above I know about LLVM - superficialy of course, but enough to know the overall plans. What "worries" me in that isn't that they can dump GCC, is that I have serious doubts that they will make their developments available to others if they are not forced to do it. It's their call though.
There is just one thing that I don't understand with that: Apple could *already* do all that. If making CUPS UI better is what they wanted they already had that option - actually. the option to change CUPS into *whatever* they wanted.
Now, I don't personally *care* that Apple has bought CUPS insofar as I don't care which company owns a GPL'ed project. *Unless* the reason for bying it was not just to more directly influence the direction of the porject but to change the licence. They can do that now of course, and the previous versions will still be available. I do not want to assume that the reason was just that, but we'll see. I am yet to see anything "free" coming out of Apple that isn't required by the terms of the licences of the software they chose to use (maybe there is though).
Indeed, I was aware of that. What I'm not expecting at all is that if Apple actually manages to do it they will share it with, for example, the BSD's (which would love to have a non-GPL compiler themselves).
Well, I'm not sure if CUPS has large ammounts of third-party code, but in general each contributor reatings copyright of his contributions (non-negligible contributions, this is a grey area but two lines of code aren't considered enough, while something more complex is). This is the reason for the copyright assignements in behalf of the FSF in GNU projects. I'm not sure if CUPS required the same. If it didn't a change in licence will have to have the consent of the contributors or have their contributions removed. This is my understanding of it anyway.
It uses GCC, but they hate it, or better yet, they hate that they have to use a product under the GPL. Steve Jobs tried to get special rights from the FSF to use GCC in NextStep, and the FSF said no, never. So, NeXT used GCC - the runtime part of Objective-C was proprietary though - and had to share the Objective-C support. I have little doubts that Apple will try to use/make another compiler as soon as they can so they can avoid having to share their changes.
Well, I don't know it its more impressive... I mean, I can see it everyday if I squint the right way in my balcony, but I think that the one in the Corcovado has the advantage of being in a high spot, were the one in Lisbon (Almada, actually) is almost in a plain... it has good visibility because there buildings in Lisbon are low enough though (but give them time, the continuing destruction of Lisbon is well under way)
In any event, and as you said, I wouldn't consider it a good "representative" of Lisbon by any stretch. It's monumental, but its recent and almost devoided of real context. There is plenty of other stuff much more worthy of the label in Lisbon (or in any other European capital or city, I'm not being parochial).
As for the voting, Brazilians are everywhere in the net (just take a look at Orkut) so there is of course some bias in placing the Cristo Redentor in the list. Brazil has actually some very nice old quarters in many cities which are IMO much more interesting, if less iconic.
I understand you points, but I think TheRaven64 already addressed your concerns... the GPL (although BSD would be the same if they actually provided the source) doesn't assume that anybody can change things, I mean, if left by my own devices I would not be able to change much except the trivial stuff. It does however leave the door open for someone with interest, expertise, time and will to do it, which is how the most unbelievably complex stuff gets done. Even if only one or two developers find it interesting the beneficts will be for all. I mean, look at the original example: RMS's printer driver. I don't even know what it involved precisely, and I think that RMS himself wasn't exactly an expert on printers per se, but if he was allowed to change the driver it would help some guy with a similar printer who doesn't know how to code. We have people expoliting exotic bugs in save games to mod the Xbox, something that I consider complex and would not be able to do, but it would allow me to install Linux in it if I had one by following a simple HOWTO (or at least much simpler than to actually do the whole stuff).
This doesn't change anything regarding the merits or not of keeping it closed, its a different discussion.
Slashdot Mirror
Forgot your meds? Just because you "feel better" doesn't mean you should stop fucktard.
Completely offtopic, but I bow my head in respect before one of the Fathers of the Church.
For example, are Greeks "white"? Specifically, were the Classical Greeks "white"?
As white as they come. That was never even an issue before the 19th century and the English racial theories of anglo-saxon superiority.The Greeks in particular are the fathers of European civilization. They weren't "white enough" for scholars in a time when "scholars" were all from the Anglosphere, and took the word white to mean some arbitrary paleness. The Celts were actually thought to be "africans" by some scholars, also to suport a political superiority of England, in this case a justification of colonialism in Ireland and Wales:
He believed that eye colour and hair colour were valuable evidence in the origins of the British people. He published The Races of Britain: A Contribution to the Anthropology of Western Europe in 1862 and again in 1885 and 1905 and again in 1971. Beddoe wrote in his that all geniuses were "orthognathous" (that is, have receding jaws) while the Irish and the Welsh were "prognathous" (have large jaws). Beddoe also maintained that Celts were similar to Cromagnon man, and Cromagnon man was similar to the "Africanoid" race. Celts in Beddoe's "Index of Negrescence" are very different than Anglo-Saxons.
Greece and Antient Greeks are if anything the archetypal Europeans, and thus, again, as white as one can be when talking about a ethnocultural sense of "race"; they have been "attacked" nowadays by the descendents of the Bedoe fellow I quote above that say that modern Greeks are mixed with Turks: this is a sort of acusation that stems from the 19th century as well, and also disregards the fact that it's actually the Turkish area that has a lot of Greek input due to Magna Grecia and the Byzantine Empire.
Bear in mind that this is, for example, similar to the "Black Lengend" against the Spanish (and by contact Iberians as a whole): the English - and Americans inherited this probably due to the Spanish American War. To quote Spain's Long Shadow: The Black Legend, Off-Whiteness, and Anglo-American Empire synopsis:
Reveals the dependence of American ethnic identity on Spain as an imperial alter-ego.
England and the Netherlands, Spain's imperial rivals of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, imagined Spain as a land of cruel and degenerate barbarians of la leyenda negra (the Black Legend), in league with the powers of "blackest darkness" and driven by "dark motives." In Spain's Long Shadow, María DeGuzmán explores how this convenient demonization made its way into American culture--and proved essential to the construction of whiteness.
DeGuzmán's work reaches from the late eighteenth century--in the wake of the American Revolution--to the present. Surveying a broad range of texts and images from Poe's "William Wilson" and John Singer Sargent's El Jaleo to Richard Wright's "Pagan Spain" and Kathy Acker's Don Quixote, Spain's Long Shadow shows how the creation of Anglo-American ethnicity as specifically American has depended on the casting of Spain as a colonial alter ego. The symbolic power of Spain in the American imagination, DeGuzmán argues, is not just a legacy of that nation's colonial presence in the Americas; it lives on as well in the "blackness" of Spain and Spaniards--in the assigning of people of Spanish origin to an "off-white" racial category that reserves the designation of white for Anglo-Americans.
By demonstrating how the Anglo-American imagination needs Spain and Spaniards as figures of attraction and repulsion, DeGuzmán makes a compelling and illuminating case for treating Spain as the imperial alter ego of the United States. Cross-cultural and interdisciplinary, ambitious in its chronological sweep, and elegant in its interpretation of literary and visual works, DeGuzmán's book leads us to a powerful new understanding of the nature--and history--of American ethnicity.
Eheheh, that reminds me a perl of anglo-saxon racial mythology:
"Which leads me to add one Remark: That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth." Benjamim Franklin
So, to ol' Ben you're "tawny". I'm even in worse conditions, since I would probably be a hit-n-miss between tawny, swarthy, "hispanic" or "latino" (this last two by name alone).
That being said "white" is an historical construct onlyif you use the WASPish and/or nordicist redefinition of the term. It was already - and still is in most of the world - used to denote people of European descent. While there are grey areas the range itself (i.e. europoid people leaving outside of Europe) is more or less well defined in a racial sense. In general the discoverers you mention did view both africans and native americans as different in a racial perspective, going so far has having precise names for the resulting offspring according to the "mixture".
Yeah, flax seed oil is a safer bet, true. Nanotubes are as you said still a bit unstable - know a guy who grew muscle in his eyebrow due to it - but they show great promise, the creatine of the XXI century some say.
Do a google search with "fructose glycogen liver" or some variants. I'm not an expert but fructose replenishes liver glycogen more than muscle glycogen, and apparently when the liver glycogen is replenished the body halts the anabolic process also for the muscle, and thus the carbs are converted to fat. This is one explanation, and is part of the reason while ideally post workout shakes do not contain fructose, or contain little of it, and prefer glucose and maltodextrose. For endurance training fructose seems to be good, because it takes longer to process.
This is just a bit of hearsay after reading several sources. I still agree with the previous post about caloric intake: it's easy to "blame" fructose - and I know of people that take this as an excuse to cut on fruit, but continue to devour a quarterpounder a day - but in reality it's the overall calory intake tha vastly exceeds the basal rate of the body - especially important since most people don't do any kind of physical exercise.
Must alaways get an edge to prevent muscle loss and catabolism, so this is the new ideal post-workout shake:
25% Maltodextrin
25% Dextrose
25% Whey Protein Isolate
5% BCAA's
5% Creatine monohydrate
5% L Glutamine
5% Multivitamin
5% Muscle bulding nanotubes
Drink as soon as possible after the workou, if using sauna don't exceed 15 minuted, the nanotubes melt.
Actually, a small correction to my previous reply: I do care a bit about Apple, in the sense that I care about OpenStep and Apple is the official steward of it with Cocoa. So, in a way, I'm tehcnological closer to Apple tham most non-Apple users.
Hey, it happens. It was a convulted history in any event, and I only know something about it because it's a technology I'm interested in, and I remember the tales about eh Jobs vs. RMS interactions regarding this, you can imagine the sparks :)
You assume to much, and take advantage of that assumptions to vent something about the FSF and the GPL. I don't have a "ridiculous meme" about Apple, I don't even care that much about Apple in the first place, for good *or* bad.
If they released the code under a BSDish licence, then great, I stand corrected and I applaud Apple, well done. So, the rest of your comment about divious plans for world dominination by FSF drones and the always repeated nonsense about the "truely free" BSD licence is more a reflection of your own zealotry then anything else.
From the comp.lang.objective-c FAQ: Objective-C was developed by Brad Cox, who founded the Stepstone corporation in 1983 to develop and support the language, a compiler, and supporting libraries. Stepstone never really made it big, fostering Objective-C in a niche similar to that of Smalltalk.
In 1985, Steve Jobs left Apple and started NeXT, a company that developed m68k machines and the NeXTSTEP operating system. The user interface of these machines was provided by Display PostScript and the AppKit, which, written in Objective-C, made Objective-C the language of choice on NeXT computers.
Brad Cox and Andrew Novobilski write `Object Oriented Programming: An Evolutionary Approach' in 1986, the first book on Objective-C.
NEXTSTEP 1.0a was released in 1989. The Objective-C compiler is based on gcc 1.34.
In 1991, the Objective-C related modifications by NeXT to gcc find their way back into the FSF GNU CC distribution. By version 1.99, gcc (the compiler) supports Objective-C.
NEXTSTEP 3.0 is released in 1992. The compiler supports Objective-C++, and the Objective-C language has been extended with `@protocol'. In the same year, gcc 2.0 comes supplied with an Objective-C runtime library.
In 1993, gcc supports protocols by version 2.4. NeXT stops the production of hardware. With NEXTSTEP 3.1 they include support for PC's. NeXT starts creating other products not bound to a particular operating system, such as Portable Distributed Objects (PDO), which comes with its own Objective-C compiler and debugger.
OPENSTEP, an Objective-C API, is made public in 1994.
NEXTSTEP 3.3 is released in 1995; it adds support for HP hppa and Sun sparc machines. Also in this year, NeXT acquires all rights to the Objective-C programming language and trademark from Stepstone.
Sun includes support for Objective-C++ in their SparcCompiler in 1996. They release OPENSTEP for Solaris. NeXT releases OPENSTEP 4.0 for PC hardware. Support for hppa and sparc has vanished. OPENSTEP for Windows NT is released.
Early 1997, Apple acquires NeXT and starts work on the next Macintosh operating system, code named Rhapsody, based on the technology they got from NeXT. In the same year, Sun fosters the success of Java and subsequently kills OPENSTEP for Solaris.
I'm not saying they were jerks about it, or about anything else. They made a decision to use GCC which was perhaps not their ideal choice in terms of the control they had, but they did their part and with time I think that they began to see that the perceived downsides of using a GPL'ed compiler were not that many and that there were many other upsides they hadn't antecipated. I'm just saying that all things being the same I think that Apple would prefer to use a compiler in which it didn't have to share the changes (even if they ended up doing it). Until then I have little doubt that Apple devs will continue to do their work on GCC, which is great for everyone, especially those of us that use Objective-C.
Well, ehe, I do, and GNUStep does. But even is the language itself isn't mainstream outside of Apple nowadays, the point is that people can program in it because of the way things went, even if it's not a very popular language.
True, Darwin of course, thanks.
But in Darwin I think that you can se that the "juicy" parts are not made available, at least that was my recollection of it. Still, I had forgotten about Darwin and that is indeed a good example of sharing without needing.
They knew all that, of course. "Hate" is perhaps to strong a word, but consider this: when NeXT needed a compiler for Objective-C they were in a situation were they either used GCC - and the FSF refused the offers to allow any kind of exemption (IIRC money offers were included) - or developed one. They did what was best for them, and used GCC. This doesn't mean that they were happy with the situation: the Objective-C and NeXTStep (nowadays also called Cocoa)were for many - me included - *the* major selling point of NeXT (perhaps more so than the great UI), and you can imagine that Jobs wouldn't be to happy with having a fundamental part of it not entirely under his control.
So, they knew, and still know, what they were getting in to, and honestly perhaps nowadays they don't care as much, as I said they aided the Objective-C++ patches into the main tree and have many devs in the GCC team. But still, I think that they would *prefer* to have a compiler that was completely under their control,one which they could release or not release changes as they see fit.
I heard the same, and a BSD-licenced front-end would fit Apple well, at least to use it. Again, I remain skeptical about they actually maintaining a BSD front-end and completely sharing their work - as opposed to using BSD code to make their own closed version. But if that's the plan, then it's good news for everyone.
I know that Apple if active in GCC development. They are putting work into it, and work which I personally take advantage of and I am particulary thankful for. That's no the question though... Apple has done one nice thing, which was working with the rest of the GCC team to integrate their changes: they are *not* required to do this by the GPL. This is great, mainly for Objective-C support, and also for Apple since they can reap the beneficts of other changes in newer GCC versions. The thing is, when all is said and done they do part of this because they are required to by the GPL. I'm not at all sure they would do the same if they weren't required to, and with LLVM they are aiming at not depending on GCC and call their own shots (undertandable from a business POV, even though they could more or less do the same with GCC given their involvement).
In the end it's a matter of control: Apple contributes to GCC but I think they feel a bit "forced" to do it, and would prefer to work on something of their own, something which they could control what parts get shared and which don't, and under which terms.
Well, I hope you're right. Time will tell.
Yes, thanks, as I said above I know about LLVM - superficialy of course, but enough to know the overall plans. What "worries" me in that isn't that they can dump GCC, is that I have serious doubts that they will make their developments available to others if they are not forced to do it. It's their call though.
There is just one thing that I don't understand with that: Apple could *already* do all that. If making CUPS UI better is what they wanted they already had that option - actually. the option to change CUPS into *whatever* they wanted.
Now, I don't personally *care* that Apple has bought CUPS insofar as I don't care which company owns a GPL'ed project. *Unless* the reason for bying it was not just to more directly influence the direction of the porject but to change the licence. They can do that now of course, and the previous versions will still be available. I do not want to assume that the reason was just that, but we'll see. I am yet to see anything "free" coming out of Apple that isn't required by the terms of the licences of the software they chose to use (maybe there is though).
Indeed, I was aware of that. What I'm not expecting at all is that if Apple actually manages to do it they will share it with, for example, the BSD's (which would love to have a non-GPL compiler themselves).
Well, I'm not sure if CUPS has large ammounts of third-party code, but in general each contributor reatings copyright of his contributions (non-negligible contributions, this is a grey area but two lines of code aren't considered enough, while something more complex is). This is the reason for the copyright assignements in behalf of the FSF in GNU projects. I'm not sure if CUPS required the same. If it didn't a change in licence will have to have the consent of the contributors or have their contributions removed. This is my understanding of it anyway.
It uses GCC, but they hate it, or better yet, they hate that they have to use a product under the GPL. Steve Jobs tried to get special rights from the FSF to use GCC in NextStep, and the FSF said no, never. So, NeXT used GCC - the runtime part of Objective-C was proprietary though - and had to share the Objective-C support. I have little doubts that Apple will try to use/make another compiler as soon as they can so they can avoid having to share their changes.
Well, I don't know it its more impressive... I mean, I can see it everyday if I squint the right way in my balcony, but I think that the one in the Corcovado has the advantage of being in a high spot, were the one in Lisbon (Almada, actually) is almost in a plain... it has good visibility because there buildings in Lisbon are low enough though (but give them time, the continuing destruction of Lisbon is well under way)
In any event, and as you said, I wouldn't consider it a good "representative" of Lisbon by any stretch. It's monumental, but its recent and almost devoided of real context. There is plenty of other stuff much more worthy of the label in Lisbon (or in any other European capital or city, I'm not being parochial).
As for the voting, Brazilians are everywhere in the net (just take a look at Orkut) so there is of course some bias in placing the Cristo Redentor in the list. Brazil has actually some very nice old quarters in many cities which are IMO much more interesting, if less iconic.
I understand you points, but I think TheRaven64 already addressed your concerns... the GPL (although BSD would be the same if they actually provided the source) doesn't assume that anybody can change things, I mean, if left by my own devices I would not be able to change much except the trivial stuff. It does however leave the door open for someone with interest, expertise, time and will to do it, which is how the most unbelievably complex stuff gets done. Even if only one or two developers find it interesting the beneficts will be for all. I mean, look at the original example: RMS's printer driver. I don't even know what it involved precisely, and I think that RMS himself wasn't exactly an expert on printers per se, but if he was allowed to change the driver it would help some guy with a similar printer who doesn't know how to code. We have people expoliting exotic bugs in save games to mod the Xbox, something that I consider complex and would not be able to do, but it would allow me to install Linux in it if I had one by following a simple HOWTO (or at least much simpler than to actually do the whole stuff).
This doesn't change anything regarding the merits or not of keeping it closed, its a different discussion.