No, we should rely on our holy messiah that is flawed science journals and insane data extrpolations based on our miniscule perspective in the universe. OBVIOUSLY the speed of light is a constant in a vacuum.... until you take into account that gravity can bend light
[Citation needed]. How exactly does general relativity change things here?
This article comes via the Guardian. This is a UK dead tree press company, which has survived mainly due to being funded by a network of hedge funds.
At least according to the overview of the Guardian Media Group from the 2011 Annual Review, the Guardian Media Group own a number of media companies and also has UKP 182.6 million in "an externally managed investment fund"; presumably that's what you're describing as "a network of hedge funds". (Note: not all investment funds are "hedge funds".)
Thus speaks the child to the naked emporer:
"Algorithms kept in abstraction are of no use. Without hardware, software is just mental masturbation."
Which does not disprove "Without software, hardware is useless." The latter isn't entirely true - if I had no software on my mobile phone, I could use it to chip ice, and if I had no software on my notebook computer, I could use it to crack nuts - but I could get an icepick for less than the phone cost, and I could get a nutcracker for less than the notebook cost.
On the other hand, without a machine on which to run it, the CD containing the software is almost useless; I could use it as a drink coaster, but I could probably get a drink coaster for less than the price of the CD.
And, in any case, it's not as none of the value of the hardware came from a services job - somebody had to design the chips, motherboard, etc..
(No, I'm not saying anything one way or another about the relative merits of development vs. manufacturing; I'm just noting that if some service employee hadn't designed the chips or motherboard, or written the software, there wouldn't be anything of value to manufacture, just as, if nobody manufactured the hardware, the designs would be of value only as wallpaper.)
The world's going to hell in a hand basket. Fear is being used to push radical right-wing ideologies just about everywhere. It's pretty hard to imagine anyone improving, much less everyone. This is all understood from context.
He was just giving an example to prove his (correct) point that dropping N points in an ordered list of how well different performers did on some criterion is not inconsistent with doing better on that criterion. His general point is that your ordinal number in that list indicates only whom you're doing better than, whom you're doing worse than, and whom you're doing as well as for that criterion; it's not as if dropping 27 places ipso facto means you're performing 100% worse on that criterion.
As he says, "If you want to make relative comparisons like %, you have to look at the finishing times." In this case, it's "look at the actual score"; unfortunately, as the scoring system changed between the 2010 and 2011-2012 rankings:
In order to have a bigger spread in the scores and increase the differentiation between countries, this year’s questionnaire had more answers assigning negative points. That is why countries at the top of the index have negative scores this year.
so you can't just compare the scores from 2010 with scores from 2011-2012.
If they consider direct media ownership by government officials as impinging on freedom of information. For example, Italy's Berlusconi owned controlling interest in much of Italy's media. He received quite a bit more consideration than any other politician would in the modern era. For any other politician a sex scandal would have been a blow to their career, while Berlusconi was only sank by Italy's near bankruptcy.
Perhaps that's some or all of why Italy is 67th on their list (down from 49th in the 2010 listing).
I didn't argue this; I've been saying for years that we need to study the education systems of those countries that are kicking our asses and take what we can from them.
Now they are taking away things already in the public domain?? Your legal system is as hilarious to watch as your government. Put the two together and it is just comedy gold.
Just out of curiosity, were they in the public domain in your country? If you read the fine article, you'll note that it says
For a variety of reasons, the works at issue, which are foreign and produced decades ago, became part of the public domain in the United States but were still copyrighted overseas. In 1994, Congress adopted legislation to move the works back into copyright, so U.S. policy would comport with an international copyright treaty known as the Berne Convention.
Cannot make a directory for the word CON, PRT, etc - left over from DOS days.
That's an issue with the OS code atop the Installable File System layer (think "VFS layer"), not with the underlying file systems that plug into that layer, so ReFS can't and won't fix that.
I am sure that many people here would like to know how you equate Ad-blocking with supporting SOPA?
Come on please tell us.
Perhaps he's Jamie Kellner, in which case the only reason I wouldn't tell him, and everybody who defends him, to go fuck themselves is that they might manage to have an orgasm in the process, and they don't deserve to enjoy themselves.
That says "federal spending". Does that include Social Security payments? Welfare? Medicaid?
Given that the Tax Foundation report got the federal expenditures data from the Census Bureau's 2005 Consolidated Federal Funds Report. Said report includes Social Security payments; see Table 2. Table 3 doesn't explicitly call out, for example, programs such as Temporary Assistance to Need Families and Aid to Families with Dependent Children (which are what I think most people really mean when they say "welfare"), but the "ESTIMATES FOR SUBSTATE DISTRIBUTIONS" secton does mention them, along with Medical Assistance (Medicaid). So the answer to your question appears to be "yes".
Per person in that state?
Figure 5 has per-capita figures, although they're not broken down into Social Security, "welfare", Medicaid, etc.. In any case, it's not as if the Tax Foundation did something stooopid such as doing tax receipts from the states per-capita and not doing federal spending per-capita, so it's not as if "per-capita in the state" matters here - revenues and expenditures both go up with more people.
I think the numbers would dramatically shift if that were included...
I think (with the Census Bureau's report as backing) that they already are included, and therefore that the numbers would not shift one iota if they were included....
3. On the whole, California takes in far more in federal benefits than it pays in federal tax. Unlike your analysis, which excludes broad categories of welfare spending, I look at gross flows of funds.
Federal Expenditures
Each year the Census Bureau releases the Consolidated Federal Funds Report, which estimates the amount of federal spending in each state and territory during the prior fiscal year. The latest report allocates approximately 92 percent of total FY 2005 federal spending. The 8 percent not allocated includes net interest outlays, foreign aid, and other outlays that are not allocable to the states. For the purposes of this report, the Tax Foundation uses this census data as is.
In the calculation of spending-to-tax ratios, however, an adjustment must be made to bring federal tax collections and federal spending into alignment. Therefore, a deficit is treated as an unfunded tax liability in the current year, allocated in the same fashion as the federal tax burden. Similarly, the model assumes that a surplus is used to pay down the federal debt to domestic capital holders.
The 2010 Consolidated Federal Funds Report does mention Temporary Aid to Needy Families and several other programs that I guess are what you're referring to when you say "welfare".
Not just the British Empire. The Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, The Russian Empire, The French Empire, The Spanish Empire, the USSR.
Empires rise, and then they fall again. The USA is on the same path as all the empire before it. Only the timing varies.
There's "the US" and there's "the US empire". The British, French, and Spanish empires had nation-states ruling over a bunch of colonies; the colonies split off, but the nation-state remained. (Well, perhaps the jury's still out on Britain.) The Russian/Soviet empire was somewhat similar, but without the overseas colonies; Russia still exists as a nation.
I'd personally like to see northern California (I'm not so sure about the southern part; that seems to be the source of most of their budget problems) break off, and join with Oregon and Washington and become a new country. Between Silicon Valley, Portland, and Seattle, the economy in that region is huge, leading the world even. California itself already has the 6th-largest (I think, maybe it's 8th) economy in the whole world, all by itself. Again, I'm not sure how much of that is from the south vs. the north, but I theorize that the north might have the majority because of Silicon Valley. OR and WA also have tons of tech companies. Together, they'd be a great economic power if they could just keep the SanFran liberals under control so they don't ruin the budget. (I'm not arguing for extremist Tea Party principles here, just some moderation; you can't keep your government afloat when you're spending more money than you take in in tax revenue on free services for everyone.)
It'd be even better if they could get British Columbia break away from Canada and join them, as Vancouver is also very strong in tech, and is also an important shipping port for access to the rest of Canada. The local cultures between Vancouver and WA/OR seem to be fairly similar too. Surely the Vancouverites have more in common with Seattle residents than with Quebec residents.
(and all the profit they made on iProducts, which were all made using conflict minerals)
Presumably you're saying that for some reason more than just "they contain tantalum capacitors", as tantalum isn't ipso facto a conflict mineral, unless you're counting Australian rules football and capoeira matches as "conflicts". E.g., perhaps most or all of the tantalum used in capacitors comes from those countries, or perhaps most or all of the tantalum used in capacitors used in Chinese factories comes from those countries, etc..
Actually, in 2009, Australian production dropped significantly ("The Government of Western Australia reported that tantalite production was 105 t of contained tantalum pentoxide (Ta2O5) in 2009 compared with 680 t of contained Ta2O5 in 2008 (Government of Western Australia, Department of Mines and Petroleum, 2010, p. 23)."), due to a mine suspending operation due to market conditions ("Talison Minerals Pty. Ltd. suspended production at the Wodgina Mine, the world’s leading producing operation of tantalum ore, owing to the global financial downturn and greater market share going to central Africa, where tantalum minerals were mined under conditions of armed conflict and human rights abuses [northeastern regions of Congo (Kinshasa)]."). So the chances that the tantalum in a capacitor was conflict tantalum went up substantially in 2009. Dunno what's happened since then. (See the Wikipedia article on coltan for summary tables.)
If you are a capitalist then you believe in individual liberty regardless of government.
Not necessarily. If you are, say, a "classical liberal" or a libertarian, you probably would believe that, but if you're only out for profit you might not care.
(and all the profit they made on iProducts, which were all made using conflict minerals)
Presumably you're saying that for some reason more than just "they contain tantalum capacitors", as tantalum isn't ipso facto a conflict mineral, unless you're counting Australian rules football and capoeira matches as "conflicts". E.g., perhaps most or all of the tantalum used in capacitors comes from those countries, or perhaps most or all of the tantalum used in capacitors used in Chinese factories comes from those countries, etc..
was replying to guy mentioning his favorite KDE based distro
But you put it in a list of advantages PC-BSD has over a Linux-based operating system, and it's not one.
Yes. "Some advantages of PC-BSD over GNU/Linux... c. choice of desktop manager, not just KDE" is bogus. Mentioning "his favorite KDE based distro", i.e. "Some advantages of PC-BSD over SimplyMEPIS... c. choice of desktop manager, not just KDE" might have made more sense.
Which is pretty much useless; it's just counting code lines. It tells you nothing about what the code does; code size does not equal importance. With a microkernel like Mach, you expect the userland tools to be bigger than the kernel itself.
With most operating systems I'd expect userland in general to be bigger than the kernel itself; to what are you referring when you speak of "the userland tools"?.
To some degree stuff that might be done in the kernel in other UN*Xes might be done in userland in Mac OS X, but it's not really a "microkernel" in the sense of "small kernel and most stuff is done in userland servers". Windows NT may be a bit more of that - I think the image activation part of CreateProcess() is mostly or entirely done in csrss rather than in kernel-mode code, unlike most if not all UN*Xes including Mac OS X, where fork() and the exec calls are done in kernel-mode code - but even NT isn't a "microkernel" in that sense (again, the file system and networking up to the transport layer is done in kernel mode).
If by "PC hardware" you're referring to x86-based machines
The point is: I'm not! Why would PC hardware be limited to Intel compatible CPU computers? The whole point is that win 8 will be able to run on ARM CPUs, meaning that conventional laptops wont always run on i386 compatible hardware.
At least given what I've last heard Microsoft said about non-Metro apps on ARM, the only "conventional laptops" running Windows 8 on ARM CPUs won't be "conventional" in the sense of running a "conventional" Windows UI.
Why are you talking about phones? We're talking about UEFI here, which will be used for your next PC hardware... Will you do without a computer as well?
MANDATORY: On non-ARM systems, the platform MUST implement the ability for a physically present user to select between two Secure Boot modes in firmware setup: "Custom" and "Standard". Custom Mode allows for more flexibility as specified in the following:
a) It shall be possible for a physically present user to use the Custom Mode firmware setup option to modify the contents of the Secure Boot signature databases and the PK.
b) If the user ends up deleting the PK then, upon exiting the Custom Mode firmware setup, the system will be operating in Setup Mode with Secure Boot turned off.
c) The firmware setup shall indicate if Secure Boot is turned on, and if it is operated in Standard or Custom Mode. The firmware setup must provide an option to return from Custom to Standard Mode which restores the factory defaults.
On an ARM system, it is forbidden to enable Custom Mode. Only Standard Mode may be enable.
So, just as they mandate "can't allow tweaking" for ARM, they appear to be mandating "can allow tweaking" for non-ARM.
Now try installing MacOS on non-Apple hardware and tell me again how open MacOS is.
If "he" is realitylimpaired, he didn't tell you how open Mac OS is, so he literally can't "tell [you] again how open MacOS is", he told you how open the Mac is:
I really hate to side with the Mac user, but he's right... his Mac *is* far more open than Windows, and has *far* more support from Apple in installing an alternative OS than Microsoft ever gives.
As noted by realityimpaired:
That, however, is because Apple is a hardware vendor, and they throw the OS in on the side. Microsoft is an OS vendor. It's not in Microsoft's interest to allow you to install something different, but it *is* in Apple's interest to give you that option.
and that extends to "it's not in Apple's interest to let you install their OS on somebody else's hardware, but it *is* in Microsoft's interest to let you install their OS on as much hardware as possible".
On Apple: wrong. It was a huge effort for them. For example Adobe didn't support Intel Macs natively until a year after they came out. Adobe has always been huge on Mac. They avoided the pain by emulation with "universal" binaries.
Presumably you meant by "with Rosetta"; universal (fat) binaries are a mechanism that lets you package native code for multiple platforms in one file, Rosetta is a program that does binary-to-binary translation of 32-bit PowerPC code to 32-bit x86 code. Rosetta is what's used if you don't have native code; universal binaries are what's used if you do.
Slashdot Mirror
No, we should rely on our holy messiah that is flawed science journals and insane data extrpolations based on our miniscule perspective in the universe. OBVIOUSLY the speed of light is a constant in a vacuum.... until you take into account that gravity can bend light
[Citation needed]. How exactly does general relativity change things here?
This article comes via the Guardian. This is a UK dead tree press company, which has survived mainly due to being funded by a network of hedge funds.
At least according to the overview of the Guardian Media Group from the 2011 Annual Review, the Guardian Media Group own a number of media companies and also has UKP 182.6 million in "an externally managed investment fund"; presumably that's what you're describing as "a network of hedge funds". (Note: not all investment funds are "hedge funds".)
Thus speaks the child to the naked emporer: "Algorithms kept in abstraction are of no use. Without hardware, software is just mental masturbation."
Which does not disprove "Without software, hardware is useless." The latter isn't entirely true - if I had no software on my mobile phone, I could use it to chip ice, and if I had no software on my notebook computer, I could use it to crack nuts - but I could get an icepick for less than the phone cost, and I could get a nutcracker for less than the notebook cost.
On the other hand, without a machine on which to run it, the CD containing the software is almost useless; I could use it as a drink coaster, but I could probably get a drink coaster for less than the price of the CD.
And, in any case, it's not as none of the value of the hardware came from a services job - somebody had to design the chips, motherboard, etc..
(No, I'm not saying anything one way or another about the relative merits of development vs. manufacturing; I'm just noting that if some service employee hadn't designed the chips or motherboard, or written the software, there wouldn't be anything of value to manufacture, just as, if nobody manufactured the hardware, the designs would be of value only as wallpaper.)
The world's going to hell in a hand basket. Fear is being used to push radical right-wing ideologies just about everywhere. It's pretty hard to imagine anyone improving, much less everyone. This is all understood from context.
He was just giving an example to prove his (correct) point that dropping N points in an ordered list of how well different performers did on some criterion is not inconsistent with doing better on that criterion. His general point is that your ordinal number in that list indicates only whom you're doing better than, whom you're doing worse than, and whom you're doing as well as for that criterion; it's not as if dropping 27 places ipso facto means you're performing 100% worse on that criterion.
As he says, "If you want to make relative comparisons like %, you have to look at the finishing times." In this case, it's "look at the actual score"; unfortunately, as the scoring system changed between the 2010 and 2011-2012 rankings:
so you can't just compare the scores from 2010 with scores from 2011-2012.
If they consider direct media ownership by government officials as impinging on freedom of information. For example, Italy's Berlusconi owned controlling interest in much of Italy's media. He received quite a bit more consideration than any other politician would in the modern era. For any other politician a sex scandal would have been a blow to their career, while Berlusconi was only sank by Italy's near bankruptcy.
Perhaps that's some or all of why Italy is 67th on their list (down from 49th in the 2010 listing).
I didn't argue this; I've been saying for years that we need to study the education systems of those countries that are kicking our asses and take what we can from them.
Sounds like a good idea. Of course, if we take that seriously, that might result in education overhaul of a type that might not be what some folks calling for changes in education might not have had in mind.
Now they are taking away things already in the public domain?? Your legal system is as hilarious to watch as your government. Put the two together and it is just comedy gold.
Just out of curiosity, were they in the public domain in your country? If you read the fine article, you'll note that it says
Cannot make a directory for the word CON, PRT, etc - left over from DOS days.
That's an issue with the OS code atop the Installable File System layer (think "VFS layer"), not with the underlying file systems that plug into that layer, so ReFS can't and won't fix that.
Citation Needed.
I am sure that many people here would like to know how you equate Ad-blocking with supporting SOPA?
Come on please tell us.
Perhaps he's Jamie Kellner, in which case the only reason I wouldn't tell him, and everybody who defends him, to go fuck themselves is that they might manage to have an orgasm in the process, and they don't deserve to enjoy themselves.
That says "federal spending". Does that include Social Security payments? Welfare? Medicaid?
Given that the Tax Foundation report got the federal expenditures data from the Census Bureau's 2005 Consolidated Federal Funds Report. Said report includes Social Security payments; see Table 2. Table 3 doesn't explicitly call out, for example, programs such as Temporary Assistance to Need Families and Aid to Families with Dependent Children (which are what I think most people really mean when they say "welfare"), but the "ESTIMATES FOR SUBSTATE DISTRIBUTIONS" secton does mention them, along with Medical Assistance (Medicaid). So the answer to your question appears to be "yes".
Per person in that state?
Figure 5 has per-capita figures, although they're not broken down into Social Security, "welfare", Medicaid, etc.. In any case, it's not as if the Tax Foundation did something stooopid such as doing tax receipts from the states per-capita and not doing federal spending per-capita, so it's not as if "per-capita in the state" matters here - revenues and expenditures both go up with more people.
I think the numbers would dramatically shift if that were included...
I think (with the Census Bureau's report as backing) that they already are included, and therefore that the numbers would not shift one iota if they were included....
3. On the whole, California takes in far more in federal benefits than it pays in federal tax. Unlike your analysis, which excludes broad categories of welfare spending, I look at gross flows of funds.
OK, so which broad categories of welfare spending did the Census Bureau exclude in the 2005 Consolidated Federal Funds Report (2005 because that's the year for the Tax Foundation's press release and their report)?
I.e., give us citations and methodology for your gross-flows-of-funds analysis, plz.
California sees less return on federal dollars than is taken in taxes. (Who's the parasite, again?)
You sure about that? Hint: look at all the Federal expenditures in California, including welfare.
OK, let's look at, say, the 2006 report from the Tax Foundation. What it says about Federal expenditures is
The 2010 Consolidated Federal Funds Report does mention Temporary Aid to Needy Families and several other programs that I guess are what you're referring to when you say "welfare".
Not just the British Empire. The Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, The Russian Empire, The French Empire, The Spanish Empire, the USSR.
Empires rise, and then they fall again. The USA is on the same path as all the empire before it. Only the timing varies.
There's "the US" and there's "the US empire". The British, French, and Spanish empires had nation-states ruling over a bunch of colonies; the colonies split off, but the nation-state remained. (Well, perhaps the jury's still out on Britain.) The Russian/Soviet empire was somewhat similar, but without the overseas colonies; Russia still exists as a nation.
Visa? That's dumb, obviously it's going to be Bitcoins.
Perhaps it would be now, but Bitcoin didn't exist in 1992.
I'd personally like to see northern California (I'm not so sure about the southern part; that seems to be the source of most of their budget problems) break off, and join with Oregon and Washington and become a new country. Between Silicon Valley, Portland, and Seattle, the economy in that region is huge, leading the world even. California itself already has the 6th-largest (I think, maybe it's 8th) economy in the whole world, all by itself. Again, I'm not sure how much of that is from the south vs. the north, but I theorize that the north might have the majority because of Silicon Valley. OR and WA also have tons of tech companies. Together, they'd be a great economic power if they could just keep the SanFran liberals under control so they don't ruin the budget. (I'm not arguing for extremist Tea Party principles here, just some moderation; you can't keep your government afloat when you're spending more money than you take in in tax revenue on free services for everyone.)
It'd be even better if they could get British Columbia break away from Canada and join them, as Vancouver is also very strong in tech, and is also an important shipping port for access to the rest of Canada. The local cultures between Vancouver and WA/OR seem to be fairly similar too. Surely the Vancouverites have more in common with Seattle residents than with Quebec residents.
Joel, is that you? :-)
I don't see Corning Corporation on the list, which puzzles me. I thought that Apple uses Gorilla Glass in a bunch of their products?
If so Corning may license the process to another manufacturer and not do the manufacturing themselves.
Or they might buy touchscreen front panels, built with Gorilla Glass, from some other vendor.
(and all the profit they made on iProducts, which were all made using conflict minerals)
Presumably you're saying that for some reason more than just "they contain tantalum capacitors", as tantalum isn't ipso facto a conflict mineral, unless you're counting Australian rules football and capoeira matches as "conflicts". E.g., perhaps most or all of the tantalum used in capacitors comes from those countries, or perhaps most or all of the tantalum used in capacitors used in Chinese factories comes from those countries, etc..
Actually, in 2009, Australian production dropped significantly ("The Government of Western Australia reported that tantalite production was 105 t of contained tantalum pentoxide (Ta2O5) in 2009 compared with 680 t of contained Ta2O5 in 2008 (Government of Western Australia, Department of Mines and Petroleum, 2010, p. 23)."), due to a mine suspending operation due to market conditions ("Talison Minerals Pty. Ltd. suspended production at the Wodgina Mine, the world’s leading producing operation of tantalum ore, owing to the global financial downturn and greater market share going to central Africa, where tantalum minerals were mined under conditions of armed conflict and human rights abuses [northeastern regions of Congo (Kinshasa)]."). So the chances that the tantalum in a capacitor was conflict tantalum went up substantially in 2009. Dunno what's happened since then. (See the Wikipedia article on coltan for summary tables.)
If you are a capitalist then you believe in individual liberty regardless of government.
Not necessarily. If you are, say, a "classical liberal" or a libertarian, you probably would believe that, but if you're only out for profit you might not care.
(and all the profit they made on iProducts, which were all made using conflict minerals)
Presumably you're saying that for some reason more than just "they contain tantalum capacitors", as tantalum isn't ipso facto a conflict mineral, unless you're counting Australian rules football and capoeira matches as "conflicts". E.g., perhaps most or all of the tantalum used in capacitors comes from those countries, or perhaps most or all of the tantalum used in capacitors used in Chinese factories comes from those countries, etc..
was replying to guy mentioning his favorite KDE based distro
But you put it in a list of advantages PC-BSD has over a Linux-based operating system, and it's not one.
Yes. "Some advantages of PC-BSD over GNU/Linux ... c. choice of desktop manager, not just KDE" is bogus. Mentioning "his favorite KDE based distro", i.e. "Some advantages of PC-BSD over SimplyMEPIS ... c. choice of desktop manager, not just KDE" might have made more sense.
Which is pretty much useless; it's just counting code lines. It tells you nothing about what the code does; code size does not equal importance. With a microkernel like Mach, you expect the userland tools to be bigger than the kernel itself.
With most operating systems I'd expect userland in general to be bigger than the kernel itself; to what are you referring when you speak of "the userland tools"?.
To some degree stuff that might be done in the kernel in other UN*Xes might be done in userland in Mac OS X, but it's not really a "microkernel" in the sense of "small kernel and most stuff is done in userland servers". Windows NT may be a bit more of that - I think the image activation part of CreateProcess() is mostly or entirely done in csrss rather than in kernel-mode code, unlike most if not all UN*Xes including Mac OS X, where fork() and the exec calls are done in kernel-mode code - but even NT isn't a "microkernel" in that sense (again, the file system and networking up to the transport layer is done in kernel mode).
If by "PC hardware" you're referring to x86-based machines
The point is: I'm not! Why would PC hardware be limited to Intel compatible CPU computers? The whole point is that win 8 will be able to run on ARM CPUs, meaning that conventional laptops wont always run on i386 compatible hardware.
At least given what I've last heard Microsoft said about non-Metro apps on ARM, the only "conventional laptops" running Windows 8 on ARM CPUs won't be "conventional" in the sense of running a "conventional" Windows UI.
Why are you talking about phones? We're talking about UEFI here, which will be used for your next PC hardware... Will you do without a computer as well?
If by "PC hardware" you're referring to x86-based machines, the offending Microsoft document says:
So, just as they mandate "can't allow tweaking" for ARM, they appear to be mandating "can allow tweaking" for non-ARM.
Now try installing MacOS on non-Apple hardware and tell me again how open MacOS is.
If "he" is realitylimpaired, he didn't tell you how open Mac OS is, so he literally can't "tell [you] again how open MacOS is", he told you how open the Mac is:
As noted by realityimpaired:
and that extends to "it's not in Apple's interest to let you install their OS on somebody else's hardware, but it *is* in Microsoft's interest to let you install their OS on as much hardware as possible".
On Apple: wrong. It was a huge effort for them. For example Adobe didn't support Intel Macs natively until a year after they came out. Adobe has always been huge on Mac. They avoided the pain by emulation with "universal" binaries.
Presumably you meant by "with Rosetta"; universal (fat) binaries are a mechanism that lets you package native code for multiple platforms in one file, Rosetta is a program that does binary-to-binary translation of 32-bit PowerPC code to 32-bit x86 code. Rosetta is what's used if you don't have native code; universal binaries are what's used if you do.