Perhaps I'm uninformed on Google/Microsoft subjects, but the misinformed (or even lies) spread by Anti-Apple people here are quite blatant.
Not a bad apple (pun not intended) out of a good lot. It's more like the whole Slashdot has become a breeding ground for misinformation-spreading Apple haters.
I'd ignore the occasional "crazy, lazy, and/or uninformed person" like how I ignore the goatse folks, but the predominance of anti-Apple folks here is rather irritating.
You take issue with a "disgustingly pro-Apple" article, snidely remark about the large download and iTunes requirement as an important missing point against (your imagined) "reader's impression that Apple devices were superior in every way possible", and then deride those coming into these threads looking for a fight?
It looks to me you came here looking for a fight. Against imaginary Apple fanbois.
You read too much into the articles that portray Apple products in a positive light. Where in the article did it claim that Apple products are "superior in every way possible". Or are they just in the imaginations of your imaginary legions of iFanbois? If so, what's your point anyway? Participating in the Android crusade (as an "Android informant") against the imaginary evil Apple empire?
My God. With your slashdot id I'd thought you'd have grown up or something...
LAWYER 2: Yes, your honor. My client took a copy of the plaintiff's code, and simply typed it all out again. Technically, my client did really write it.
why would Google with the all the unlimited resources in the world opt to rip-off Linux and Java?
Just like asking why the rich people would rip off the poor...
I mean, Google isn't as evil as the rich bastards over there at Wall Street, but the question itself isn't really so non-sensical as you'd think.
Besides, writing a mature software platform is *hard* (multibilliondollar-hard). The two major platforms for smartphones are from Apple and Microsoft, and both companies had decades of experience, code and developer base from the desktop OS platforms to build upon. Google had none of that, and so they chose an existing one (Java).
âoeI donâ(TM)t want your moneyâ Jobs told Schmidt as the two men met in a cafe in Palo Alto early last year. âoeIf you offer me $5 billion, I wonâ(TM)t want it. Iâ(TM)ve got plenty of money. I want you to stop using our ideas in Android, thatâ(TM)s all I want.â Unsurprisingly no settlement was reached, and the legal battle between Android OEMs and Apple continues to this day.
The lawsuits are about the product, not the profits.
All software are based on Turing machines which have been around since at least the 1940s. The Turing machines are based on pen and paper which have been around for ~2000 years.
I mean, a lot of people have been writing with pen and paper for centuries. If there was a non-obvious part to this, it was the concept of letting a machine do its thing. Once you think of that all "innovations" in computing are just obvious.
No wonder some idiot commissioner of the patent office once (allegedly) said "Everything that can be invented has been invented".
You wouldn't believe how much crap the Chinese people tolerate on web sites.
Between the slow spyware ridden browsers, IE6-only Javascript errors, malfunctioning ad popups, and general poor user interfaces etc., they somehow manage to use those sites.
So basically you're saying a low end phone is best running Java...?
The high end tablets don't really feel 100% smooth when running Android apps (think scrolling etc), I can't see how low end phones can run Android without crapping out.
Daoism: 99% of the battle of daoism is figuring out what you are supposed to do. That is an ancient Chinese way of teaching.....but, if you ever do figure out what it is you're supposed to do, then you will be able to tap into the mysterious power of the Dao. If you figure out what you are supposed to do, and do it, and still can't tap into that power, then you've just falsified Daoism.
There are many interpretations of Daoism, from purely philosophy to batshit crazy superstitions that sometimes pass as religions, and sometimes various traditional Chinese folk-mysticisms are labelled under Daoism.
WTF? N. Korea is sort of unpredictable, and has nothing to lose, but China isn't going to sink trillions of dollars, attract international animosity, potentially declaring war with various countries, and forgo actual economic development --- just to wage war on a petty little country.
Seriously, for all its other flaws, China isn't as idiotic as the USA when it comes to these things. It may be hard for you believe this, but it's true.
On these subjects, if you read "news", or even *real* news , you're probably already unknowingly subject to various propaganda campaigns, unless you read a *really* wide range of news from various agencies and countries, in different languages.
The picture painted (for example) in the news in the Muslim world is not as rosy for the US as the whatever news you read.
Yeah, blame the language for the incompetence of your coworkers...
Seriously, if your coworkers and business partners couldn't indent properly... well, they'll suck in any other language which isn't idiot proof anyway.
Frankly, I don't give a crap how much code Apple contributes back to the community. They are within their rights to follow the licenses of the projects they use or contribute to. This isn't in question. What bothers me is when people point to Webkit and say "Apple created that. Look at what Apple has done for open source." It's a load of crap.
I object your putting other's crap in my mouth. I never said Apple "created" Webkit. Nor did the poster that you replied to say anything like that.
Let's recap a bit:
Apple has contributed to open source, from WebKit to Clang.
I love it when Apple fanboys bring up Webkit. KHTML had much of the heavy lifting done before apple re-branded--err I mean forked--it. Yes, they have contributed but they have taken way more than they have ever given back.
So Apple contributed to open source or they didn't. Does claiming Apple "contributed to open source" bother you to the point that you have to find reasons to treat us like the fanbois that you hate so much?
In fact, why are you annoyed at Apple's open source projects, whether it's called KHTML, WebKit or whatever?
Do you rave at random people online for complimenting Google's "open source contributions" by sponsorship of Mozilla development? Would you dispute Redhat's contributions to the Linux kernel because "Linus created it"? And all the other open source projects sponsored or bought by well funded companies?
Among them all, you're singling out Apple because you hate their fans? Or do you really go out and antagonize all supporters of companies that run open source projects?
I love it when Apple fanboys bring up Webkit. KHTML had much of the heavy lifting done before apple re-branded--err I mean forked--it. Yes, they have contributed but they have taken way more than they have ever given back.
By that logic Linus too has taken way more than he has ever given back. How many lines of Linux code has he written of the million lines today? The heavy lifting was done by all the other kernel developers.
Right?
What you failed to mention is that this closed, anticompetitive, evil Apple has actually facilitated the creation of a browser by a direct competitor called Chrome.
I don't think there are many people out there claiming Apple is a shining example of an open source company -- the likes of Redhat and such. Examples such as Webkit, Clang, CUPS, etc. are used as counter examples to show the absurdity of the haters' claims that the company has an insatiable desire to keep every single byte of their systems closed.
This isn't a dick waving contest to see who "contributed" more to open source than taking away from it (if something like that even exists).
No one knows precisely what intelligence is, and even experts disagree as to how it should be defined. However, it has been known for over a century that performance on different cognitive tests is positively correlated: for example, someone who is good at math puzzles is also more likely to have an above average vocabulary. Given a battery of tests and their correlation matrix, one can use probability theory to define a single parameter that, in a sense, optimally compresses the information from administering them all.
In practice, a wide range of intuitively sensible test batteries and functions of their score vectors yield very similar estimates of this parameter. As a result, psychologists consider these functions of test batteries to all be reasonable estimators of a parameter called the General Factor of Intelligence, or g for short.
From the use of phrases like "intuitively sensible", it should be clear that the definition of g is a little bit arbitrary. However, we believe that it's the most promising metric to base an intelligence GWAS on. The most important properties of g are:
stability (scores tend not to vary significantly after adolescence), heritability (twin and adoption studies suggest that much of the variance in g is due to genetics), and predictive power (g scores are correlated with academic and job performance, income, longevity, etc., even after controlling for other variables such as social class).
At least they know their results have limited scope.
I guess we're using very different definitions of "software developers" then. I agree with your other post about the situation if we take your definition of "software developers".
With one reservation I guess -- the process of making software is inherently more complicated than assembling the same hardware over and over again -- if the process was really exactly the same, each time, somebody would immediately write a script to automate it.
But then, the constantly changing frameworks and best practices in the industry (at least on the 5-10 year scale) suggest that while those practices may be the best known to date, they are far from proven enough to be set in stone... that's what I was trying to say by that question.
You're just bitter. From all sources I've heard, the companies in Silicon Valley *are* talent starved, and would pay salaries much more than those of diamond cutters for talent.
Writing good software is (I presume) harder than cutting diamonds. The market allows a higher salary.
Of course, that doesn't make every software developer as wealthy as Bill Gates, but then, almost nobody is as wealthy as he is.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps I'm uninformed on Google/Microsoft subjects, but the misinformed (or even lies) spread by Anti-Apple people here are quite blatant.
Not a bad apple (pun not intended) out of a good lot. It's more like the whole Slashdot has become a breeding ground for misinformation-spreading Apple haters.
I'd ignore the occasional "crazy, lazy, and/or uninformed person" like how I ignore the goatse folks, but the predominance of anti-Apple folks here is rather irritating.
You take issue with a "disgustingly pro-Apple" article, snidely remark about the large download and iTunes requirement as an important missing point against (your imagined) "reader's impression that Apple devices were superior in every way possible", and then deride those coming into these threads looking for a fight?
It looks to me you came here looking for a fight. Against imaginary Apple fanbois.
You read too much into the articles that portray Apple products in a positive light. Where in the article did it claim that Apple products are "superior in every way possible". Or are they just in the imaginations of your imaginary legions of iFanbois? If so, what's your point anyway? Participating in the Android crusade (as an "Android informant") against the imaginary evil Apple empire?
My God. With your slashdot id I'd thought you'd have grown up or something...
LAWYER 2: Yes, your honor. My client took a copy of the plaintiff's code, and simply typed it all out again. Technically, my client did really write it.
Sometimes simple isn't enough.
why would Google with the all the unlimited resources in the world opt to rip-off Linux and Java?
Just like asking why the rich people would rip off the poor...
I mean, Google isn't as evil as the rich bastards over there at Wall Street, but the question itself isn't really so non-sensical as you'd think.
Besides, writing a mature software platform is *hard* (multibilliondollar-hard). The two major platforms for smartphones are from Apple and Microsoft, and both companies had decades of experience, code and developer base from the desktop OS platforms to build upon. Google had none of that, and so they chose an existing one (Java).
http://www.slashgear.com/steve-jobs-pledged-thermonuclear-war-on-grand-theft-android-21189861/
âoeI donâ(TM)t want your moneyâ Jobs told Schmidt as the two men met in a cafe in Palo Alto early last year. âoeIf you offer me $5 billion, I wonâ(TM)t want it. Iâ(TM)ve got plenty of money. I want you to stop using our ideas in Android, thatâ(TM)s all I want.â Unsurprisingly no settlement was reached, and the legal battle between Android OEMs and Apple continues to this day.
The lawsuits are about the product, not the profits.
inability of a group of smart people here in /. to rise above their prejudices
You lost me at "smart".
I wish I was only joking.
All software are based on Turing machines which have been around since at least the 1940s. The Turing machines are based on pen and paper which have been around for ~2000 years.
I mean, a lot of people have been writing with pen and paper for centuries. If there was a non-obvious part to this, it was the concept of letting a machine do its thing. Once you think of that all "innovations" in computing are just obvious.
No wonder some idiot commissioner of the patent office once (allegedly) said "Everything that can be invented has been invented".
Perhaps he runs the apps/daemons in Mono. Hah.
Seriously, that sentence alone is worthy of a +5 funny IMHO...
You wouldn't believe how much crap the Chinese people tolerate on web sites.
Between the slow spyware ridden browsers, IE6-only Javascript errors, malfunctioning ad popups, and general poor user interfaces etc., they somehow manage to use those sites.
It's amazing.
So basically you're saying a low end phone is best running Java...?
The high end tablets don't really feel 100% smooth when running Android apps (think scrolling etc), I can't see how low end phones can run Android without crapping out.
To nitpick a bit:
Daoism: 99% of the battle of daoism is figuring out what you are supposed to do. That is an ancient Chinese way of teaching.....but, if you ever do figure out what it is you're supposed to do, then you will be able to tap into the mysterious power of the Dao. If you figure out what you are supposed to do, and do it, and still can't tap into that power, then you've just falsified Daoism.
There are many interpretations of Daoism, from purely philosophy to batshit crazy superstitions that sometimes pass as religions, and sometimes various traditional Chinese folk-mysticisms are labelled under Daoism.
Why is getting 0.1% of marketshare cheap?
Why does the whole post sound like an advertisement?
WTF? N. Korea is sort of unpredictable, and has nothing to lose, but China isn't going to sink trillions of dollars, attract international animosity, potentially declaring war with various countries, and forgo actual economic development --- just to wage war on a petty little country.
Seriously, for all its other flaws, China isn't as idiotic as the USA when it comes to these things. It may be hard for you believe this, but it's true.
On these subjects, if you read "news", or even *real* news , you're probably already unknowingly subject to various propaganda campaigns, unless you read a *really* wide range of news from various agencies and countries, in different languages.
The picture painted (for example) in the news in the Muslim world is not as rosy for the US as the whatever news you read.
Yeah, blame the language for the incompetence of your coworkers...
Seriously, if your coworkers and business partners couldn't indent properly... well, they'll suck in any other language which isn't idiot proof anyway.
That is simply an exception to a rule
Hypocrisy can be formulated as such: "Do as I say except when I don't want to."
Frankly, I don't give a crap how much code Apple contributes back to the community. They are within their rights to follow the licenses of the projects they use or contribute to. This isn't in question. What bothers me is when people point to Webkit and say "Apple created that. Look at what Apple has done for open source." It's a load of crap.
I object your putting other's crap in my mouth. I never said Apple "created" Webkit. Nor did the poster that you replied to say anything like that.
Let's recap a bit:
Apple has contributed to open source, from WebKit to Clang.
I love it when Apple fanboys bring up Webkit. KHTML had much of the heavy lifting done before apple re-branded--err I mean forked--it. Yes, they have contributed but they have taken way more than they have ever given back.
So Apple contributed to open source or they didn't. Does claiming Apple "contributed to open source" bother you to the point that you have to find reasons to treat us like the fanbois that you hate so much?
In fact, why are you annoyed at Apple's open source projects, whether it's called KHTML, WebKit or whatever?
Do you rave at random people online for complimenting Google's "open source contributions" by sponsorship of Mozilla development? Would you dispute Redhat's contributions to the Linux kernel because "Linus created it"? And all the other open source projects sponsored or bought by well funded companies?
Among them all, you're singling out Apple because you hate their fans? Or do you really go out and antagonize all supporters of companies that run open source projects?
And you taught us it's ok to be a stuck-up asshole, even if you don't have style...
The Great AC of Slashdot will be remembered!
I love it when Apple fanboys bring up Webkit. KHTML had much of the heavy lifting done before apple re-branded--err I mean forked--it. Yes, they have contributed but they have taken way more than they have ever given back.
By that logic Linus too has taken way more than he has ever given back. How many lines of Linux code has he written of the million lines today? The heavy lifting was done by all the other kernel developers.
Right?
What you failed to mention is that this closed, anticompetitive, evil Apple has actually facilitated the creation of a browser by a direct competitor called Chrome.
I don't think there are many people out there claiming Apple is a shining example of an open source company -- the likes of Redhat and such. Examples such as Webkit, Clang, CUPS, etc. are used as counter examples to show the absurdity of the haters' claims that the company has an insatiable desire to keep every single byte of their systems closed.
This isn't a dick waving contest to see who "contributed" more to open source than taking away from it (if something like that even exists).
Heh. Get a life dude.
I'm not aware of any court ruling that those patents are not frand patents either. You're at least as baseless in flinging that shit around.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=motorola+patent+frand
Not exactly conclusive evidence, but on balance, you're the one with more shit.
Congrats on reading the article though. Next time try a bit harder before randomly insulting people.
All you people need to RTFM (and click the FAQ):
https://www.cog-genomics.org/faq/
What is intelligence?
No one knows precisely what intelligence is, and even experts disagree as to how it should be defined. However, it has been known for over a century that performance on different cognitive tests is positively correlated: for example, someone who is good at math puzzles is also more likely to have an above average vocabulary. Given a battery of tests and their correlation matrix, one can use probability theory to define a single parameter that, in a sense, optimally compresses the information from administering them all.
In practice, a wide range of intuitively sensible test batteries and functions of their score vectors yield very similar estimates of this parameter. As a result, psychologists consider these functions of test batteries to all be reasonable estimators of a parameter called the General Factor of Intelligence, or g for short.
From the use of phrases like "intuitively sensible", it should be clear that the definition of g is a little bit arbitrary. However, we believe that it's the most promising metric to base an intelligence GWAS on. The most important properties of g are:
stability (scores tend not to vary significantly after adolescence),
heritability (twin and adoption studies suggest that much of the variance in g is due to genetics), and
predictive power (g scores are correlated with academic and job performance, income, longevity, etc., even after controlling for other variables such as social class).
At least they know their results have limited scope.
I guess we're using very different definitions of "software developers" then. I agree with your other post about the situation if we take your definition of "software developers".
With one reservation I guess -- the process of making software is inherently more complicated than assembling the same hardware over and over again -- if the process was really exactly the same, each time, somebody would immediately write a script to automate it.
But then, the constantly changing frameworks and best practices in the industry (at least on the 5-10 year scale) suggest that while those practices may be the best known to date, they are far from proven enough to be set in stone... that's what I was trying to say by that question.
You're just bitter. From all sources I've heard, the companies in Silicon Valley *are* talent starved, and would pay salaries much more than those of diamond cutters for talent.
Writing good software is (I presume) harder than cutting diamonds. The market allows a higher salary.
Of course, that doesn't make every software developer as wealthy as Bill Gates, but then, almost nobody is as wealthy as he is.