Far, far, far more people are shot illegally than legally in the US. Statistically, a gun used to kill someone (a very minor percentage of all guns, I know) is far more likely to have been used in a murder than in legitimate self-defense. Therefore, marketing for stopping power is very close to marketing for illegal purposes, at least by the same standard that was applied to Grokster. Certainly the grey area of the gun market (armor piercing bullets, for example) is at least as grey as P2P.
Guns are a tool used for killing things. Grokster is a tool for swapping files. Both activities are extremely open for abuse, and innovations that make the tool more efficent make it more efficent for illegal use as well as legal. The distinction is not nearly as clear as you would like - the main difference being that there aren't a couple million wealthy lobbyists on the P2P side.
It's actually a little more interesting than that. Amtrack owns (almost?) no track - they run pretty much entirely on track owned by the standard commercial railroads. Building new track is almost impossible, because of the right of way requirements (trains aren't sexy any more so you can't get the government to sieze it for you via emminent domain). The guys who actually own the right of way and the tracks are commercial railroads, who don't (and can't) provide passenger service and have no interest in laying out millions to upgrade track. Amtrack is legally prohibited from carrying signifigant freight, and doesn't have the passenger base to fund track improvements, even if the track owners were willing to upgrade (a lot of commercial rail guys hate Amtrack and would refuse to upgrade just on principle). Passenger rail in the US is pretty much screwed and has been since we made the decision to go with highways instead - it would take major Federal funding and interest to get it to any reasonable level, and theres just not the citizen-level demand for it.
The difference comes in what you claim as responsible. The fact is, the legal usage of an armor piercing round is essentially zero, and the legal uses of a high stopping power round very few (certain types of big game hunting, extreme cases of self defense). Certainly the uses to which they are commonly put are more often illegal than not. The courts (and legislatures) seem to be far more willing to draw fine lines with software than they do with guns - this is due, no doubt, to the enormously powerful gun lobby. You say that marketing based on stopping power is legal - well, why is it?
For an even *better* comparison, how about car manufacturers advertising based on speed and acceleration features that can only legally be used on private roads? Sure, fast cars aren't illegal. But why not? (thats rhetorical, I'm simply making the point for comparison) Speeding is illegal, and the (overwhelmingly) main use of a fast car is to speed. Broadband ISPs may be next - how many advertisements for cable or DSL have you heard that mention fast downloads of movies and/or music?
I've seen quite a few gun magazines (mostly in the waiting rooms of auto shops, for some reason) that advertise ammunition or guns based on lethality or stopping power or penetration ability. To my mind, this isn't especially different than the claiming that "any movie or song" can be found on your P2P network. The extent of this ruling will depend greatly on what "promotion" is considered to be, and knowing this court they'll fail to provide any sort of reasonable standard, and the de facto definition will end up being that unless you explicitly monitor and control your network, you're promoting illegal behavior.
No doubt lots of people will jump to tell me about how guns are different and how responsible gun manufacturers are and whatnot, to which I will respond: "Bullshit". The black market in guns (internationally, as well as just in the US) is not fuelled soley by theft from warehouses.
The whistling thing is real, too. Prosecuting attorneys told the judge that during his arraingment and bail hearings, and he was held without access to a phone (even a prison payphone) for that reason. The kind of bullshit some people will swallow is amazing.
a) There *is* garbage collection in ObjC (via refcounting), and GC has little to nothing to do with the relative security of C and Java (theres some obscure security flaws related to misuse of buggy versions of malloc(), on the other hand there's obscure flaws related to abusing the GC scheme to bypass Javas typesafety. And neither are common or practical.)
b) You can certainly use unsafe C contructs in ObjC, but ObjC provides (and encourages) safe, non-C constructs that address the vast majority of C problems. Unsafe pointer and buffer operations are rare in ObjC, because the language provides better alternatives.
c) "Many cases slower than Java" is the sort of unsupportable bullshit that people make when they're trolling. Yes, message passing is slower than virtual function calls (and Javas are [much,much] slower than C++s vcalls).
Wal-Mart regularly leverages it's economic power and promise to get consideration from local governments - bribery, essentially. Exemption from taxes is a popular item. Zoning changes are another one. Of course it's the liberal lawsuits opposing it that get the press - the initial decisions in favor of the wal-mart happen in small local government meetings without reporters.
I'd be amazed if Wal-Mart wasn't overjoyed by this ruling, though you're correct that they weren't directly invovled - the corp in the background here is Pfizer, not Wal-Mart.
IE will also double-request if you double click submit buttons. I'm not sure about links but I'm pretty sure it happens with those, too. I can't speak for Opera in this case.
Opera actually has the potential for the most accurate user counting around - count number of current licenses, count unique clients being served ads for the adware version. It'd be very slightly over-inflated by people who bought licenses but switched browsers, and slightly under-inflated by pirated versions. But more accurate than web logs, especially when Opera intentionally masks itself.
I wonder if there's a reason why Opera doesn't reveal these numbers....
You wouldn't even need a tape measure. Laser rangefinder in your pocket would be fine. Precise measurements and structural designs are important in "legit" demolition because you want a very carefully controlled, minimal explosion that flattens the building perfectly. When you're just blowing shit up, all you care about is a big boom.
Did you even read the abu-gahrib report? Prisoners there were repeatedly beaten, attacked with dogs, and raped. Lyddie England, guilty as she may be, is being used a scapegoat so that the institution that explicitly permitted and advocated those actions can get off scott free - the Army uses "civilian contractors" to run "interrogations". Why? Because these "civilians" exist in a legal loophole where theres no law with jurisdiction over therem. Rumsfeld has repeatedly defended the use of torture (that specific word, mind you, there's no playing of games about turning up the AC here) as a legitimate means of obtaining information. What the fuck is *wrong* with you that you think this is okay?
Nobody does this on Windows, either. Probably on Linux, using a framebuffer. Now, DirectX and Quartz do indeed talk directly to the hardware (simplified explanation, I know...), but the software talks to DX/Quartz, not the hardware. Same with games.
You obviously don't know what the hell you're talking about. The license of a theme is of obvious importance to someone looking to redistribute screenshots, and just because all the themes you know about are under the GPL doesn't mean that they shouldn't ensure that the themes they're actually screenshotting are also under the GPL or a similiar unrestrictive license (there are actually a number of KDE and Windows themes under CC licenses, for example).
Get the hell off the output clause. It doesn't mean what you think it means. You don't get any sort of goddamn magic immunity to copyright because it was output from a GPL program. It is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to the copyright on screenshots of a program. It's even more irrelevant because X11 and X.org aren't even GPL. Sorry for the profanity but you're totally on the wrong track here and need to take a minute to actually figure out what you're talking about.
I know exactly what the GPL is and what it covers - far better than you, apparently. They're irrelevent because the copyright on the source code does not neccesarily cover copyrightable elements of an interface, which would be what you'd need to satisfy a pedantic lawyer seeking release for screenshots. The copyright on a screenshot of a program would lie with a) the programs creator, to the degree that the interface is copyrightable, and b) with the theme creator, to the degree that the elements of the theme UI are copyrightable. The license of the X server (which isn't fucking GPLed anyway), of GTK, of GTKs theme engine, or anything else aren't important.
1) Just because I don't know that there are any doesn't mean that they don't exist. But it's the themes copyright thats important, not Gtks. The GPL, by the way, has nothing whatsoever to say about screenshots - a GPL license on a theme would allow redistribution of the theme elements, which would cover screenshots, but you can absolutely make a case that GPL licensed source code does not extend to the copyrightable elements of an interface.
2) Irrelevant.
A) The GPLs output clause does NOT remove copyright from output that would otherwise be copyrighted. If I write a program that outputs popular music, is that music still copyrighted? In fact, the GPLs output clause is a clarification that the GPL isn't viral with regards to produced works, such as the output of GCC, and has nothing to do with any other copyrights that might exist on the output. This is why Bison has a specific exemption on output, for example. The theme engine can have any license it wants, it has no bearing whatsoever on whether a screenshot would infringe. If you thought about this for 20 seconds you'd probably understand it.
B1) Broadly correct, if simplistic. Copyright law, for example, does not support the idea that internal distribution doesn't count.
B2) Correct, but irrelevent.
B3) True, and thats why the copyright of the application AND the theme are important
B4) Irrevelent, and only sort of correct
Trade dress, by the way, is a commonly used term for the aggregate of trademarks used in a product.
I should point out that I'm not a pacifist, simply that many people become one because it's they can find no other way out of the cycle of violence. You can learn a lot by talking to one. Telling yourself that it's okay for you to kill just this one person, or this one set of people, rapidly leads to more and more violence - if it's okay for someone to kill Japanese citizens because of the rape & torture of prisoners, then it's okay for them to kill US citizens because of the killing of innocent Japanese, which makes it okay... etc. It doesn't take the knowledge of history to see this happening - it's happening right now in the Middle East and it'll keep happening - our invasion of Iraq was justifed because of Saddams killing/torturing of people. Now there's insurgence and rebellion against the US forces there, and they feel justified because US troops have been killing Iraq citizens. So we feel justified in killing and torturing more citizens, so that we can track down the insurgents.
Killing another human is the ultimate in putting your own more and mental comfort above the phsycial well-being of another - even more so when you then convince yourself that it's justified. At the very least, the position of the pacifist is consistent - logically, a bombing of US troops in Iraq is a fully justified action of self-defense by an oppressed populace.
Don't be a retard - the UN investigators were able to certify the destruction of the weapons Saddam used in the 90s (which he aquired from the US - not especially relevent, but a still ignored point by people eager to inflate our world-saving hero image).
If you think there wasn't any lying and overstating of facts about his weapons programs, you're the one who's delusional - his nuclear capacity was grossly overstated. His chemical capacity was stated as *current* and *real*, not some hypothetical program he might have managed to bring up in 6 months. It's hard to objectively fault his treatment of the UN inspectors, who were overall satisfied with the access they had (and who's analysis of Saddams capabilities has been repeatedly confirmed post invasion), and Saddams reaction to the (factual) claim that CIA agents were attempting to infiltrate the weapons inspection teams was actually fairly measured, especially considering that we've tried to assassinate him before. If on the off chance that the US *ever* allowed US inspection of it's arsenal, we'd arrest and probably execute Iraqi spies that were discovered.
Repeating the mantra "We didn't find WMD" is fucking *important*, because Saddam was claimed to be a clear, present and current threat to the US, with current, actual, NBC capability. It should be obvious to anyone who's not brain damaged that if Saddam needed the sanctions lifted to start his WMD programs, then the sanctions were working and the correct response isn't to invade him, but to maintain the sanctions programs. And thats granting you your 6 months estimate, which is from the exact same sources that claimed he had them already - not exactly a proven source of reliable information on Saddams weapons programs.
So who exactly is swallowing what propaganda here? The pre-invasion hype about his WMD, from Colin Powell's UN presentation to Bush's State of the Union address, has been proven in hindsight to be grossly misinformed. Upon further inspection, it seems very likely that it wasn't a simple case of poor analysis combined with paranoia, but that there was intentional selection and interpertation done to create a false impression. I tend to grant the benefit of the doubt to everyone, so I'm not jumping right on the "OMG they lied for the invasion" line, but the reasons given, to the US people, to the international community, and the Congress about our reasons for invasion were *wrong*. That demands a little bit more respect and addressing than the sort of frantic backpedalling and spin thats the standard Bush adminstration party line.
The Japanese culture of the time had acclimated pretty well to war. Atrocities were normal - read up just a bit for someone justifying the use of the bomb based on what the Japanese did to prisoners. If your moral code is fine with end justifies the means , then so be it, but I think it makes you a lesser human. I know perfectly well that we could carbet bomb instead of precision bomb, and I don't think that *either* of them are okay.
And just to correct this stupid goddamn "own civilians" thing, it doesn't matter, okay? They weren't "his" civilians any more than the Native Americans were "our" civilians or the Palestinians are Israels civilians. He gassed a bunch of people, and thats bad, and you don't need to try to make it "more bad".
By the way, according to your own logic here, there's no reason we should be upset about 9/11, OR the gassing of the Kurds - they aren't any more (or less) deserving of sympathy than civilian deaths in Nagasaki, or Dresden, or London.
It's easy to pick examples of atrocities and justify whatever you want from them. It's not like there no Japanese people totured by US troops, either. And, of course, the people torturing your grandmother weren't the ones who got the bomb dropped on them.
This, of course, is why people decided that full-blown pacifism is the only way - because once a cycle of violence starts ever step simply escalates and becomes "justified" by the previous atrocities.
Now, granted, the Japanese culture of war was *extremely* harsh and the atrocities commited were extreme. But that doesn't make other atrocities okay.
War is about the demonization of the enemy - the psychology that makes a Japanese soldier feel okay about (horribly) torturing someone to death to maintain order in a camp is exactly the same as the one that lets someone feel okay about killing (horribly) tens of thousand of civilians in an attempt to force an opponent into surrender. War is a nasty, violent, terrible thing and glorifying it only leads to more atrocities - no matter how bad your enemy is.
Sure, you won't die if you don't have bnetd. On the other hand, it's no big deal if you DO have it, either. The piracy claim is specious at best, and while for some reason gets away with shit in EULAs that other industries wouldn't dream of, usage restrictions like "you can only use this product with our other product" have been tossed before.
The output clause is totally irrelevant because a) the output clause only applies to works under the GPL. The copyright violated by a screenshot would be the copyright of the theme creator, not the person who wrote the theme engine. So the license of the engine or, indeed, of Gtk itself is irrelevent. Whats important is the license of the theme, and of the specific piece of software you're screenshotting. The theme should have an explicit license, most of them are LGPL or some Creative Commons, and therefore should have no problems with screenshots. The software itself is potentially more complicated, because the layout and look & feel may be protected, and the rights granted by (L)GPL do *not* extend to that - thats why the Firefox trade dress is protected, for example.
It's called "JScript" on Windows. JavaScript is a Netscape-ism. JScript is Microsofts implementation of the ECMAScript standard, and, as with all their implementations of standards, they document where they deviate from the standard. However, there are very few places where they don't implement the standard (any? I'm not sure), and ECMAScript explicitly allows for extensions. So it doesn't matter how much you add, you can't be non-standard as long as you implement what the standard has.
The GUI parts of.NET are not supported by Mono, and GNUStep is a pale shadow of Apples Cocoa in terms of scope and functionality. Both are certainly usable but are not drop-in replacements that can magically make.NET or Cocoa code cross-platform.
Qt is very heavily invested in the "enhanced C++" provided by the usage of MOC (for example, the new foreach keyword they add in Qt4), so I don't think it's going away any time soon. You can certainly replicate the functionality that Qt provides via the MOC using sufficently sophisticated macros & templates but Trolltech has decided to embrace the enhanced syntatic sugar at the expense of technical correctness or standards compliance (people argue that Qt code is 'standard' C++ code, but they're being pedantic. Qt requires MOC to be run, plain & simple, and is therefore a meta-language on top of C++, not C++ itself). Personally, I don't like the solution (I'm a former Qt user who switched to wxWidgets), but there's plenty of people who don't mind.
I presume it's a reference to an (apparently fake)interview with the president of Nintendo from a while back, where he told Balmer to lick his tiny yellow balls. http://www.gamerah.com/noticias.php?bias=180
Slashdot Mirror
Guns are a tool used for killing things. Grokster is a tool for swapping files. Both activities are extremely open for abuse, and innovations that make the tool more efficent make it more efficent for illegal use as well as legal. The distinction is not nearly as clear as you would like - the main difference being that there aren't a couple million wealthy lobbyists on the P2P side.
It's actually a little more interesting than that. Amtrack owns (almost?) no track - they run pretty much entirely on track owned by the standard commercial railroads. Building new track is almost impossible, because of the right of way requirements (trains aren't sexy any more so you can't get the government to sieze it for you via emminent domain). The guys who actually own the right of way and the tracks are commercial railroads, who don't (and can't) provide passenger service and have no interest in laying out millions to upgrade track. Amtrack is legally prohibited from carrying signifigant freight, and doesn't have the passenger base to fund track improvements, even if the track owners were willing to upgrade (a lot of commercial rail guys hate Amtrack and would refuse to upgrade just on principle). Passenger rail in the US is pretty much screwed and has been since we made the decision to go with highways instead - it would take major Federal funding and interest to get it to any reasonable level, and theres just not the citizen-level demand for it.
For an even *better* comparison, how about car manufacturers advertising based on speed and acceleration features that can only legally be used on private roads? Sure, fast cars aren't illegal. But why not? (thats rhetorical, I'm simply making the point for comparison) Speeding is illegal, and the (overwhelmingly) main use of a fast car is to speed. Broadband ISPs may be next - how many advertisements for cable or DSL have you heard that mention fast downloads of movies and/or music?
No doubt lots of people will jump to tell me about how guns are different and how responsible gun manufacturers are and whatnot, to which I will respond: "Bullshit". The black market in guns (internationally, as well as just in the US) is not fuelled soley by theft from warehouses.
The whistling thing is real, too. Prosecuting attorneys told the judge that during his arraingment and bail hearings, and he was held without access to a phone (even a prison payphone) for that reason. The kind of bullshit some people will swallow is amazing.
b) You can certainly use unsafe C contructs in ObjC, but ObjC provides (and encourages) safe, non-C constructs that address the vast majority of C problems. Unsafe pointer and buffer operations are rare in ObjC, because the language provides better alternatives.
c) "Many cases slower than Java" is the sort of unsupportable bullshit that people make when they're trolling. Yes, message passing is slower than virtual function calls (and Javas are [much,much] slower than C++s vcalls).
I'd be amazed if Wal-Mart wasn't overjoyed by this ruling, though you're correct that they weren't directly invovled - the corp in the background here is Pfizer, not Wal-Mart.
IE will also double-request if you double click submit buttons. I'm not sure about links but I'm pretty sure it happens with those, too. I can't speak for Opera in this case.
I wonder if there's a reason why Opera doesn't reveal these numbers....
You wouldn't even need a tape measure. Laser rangefinder in your pocket would be fine. Precise measurements and structural designs are important in "legit" demolition because you want a very carefully controlled, minimal explosion that flattens the building perfectly. When you're just blowing shit up, all you care about is a big boom.
Did you even read the abu-gahrib report? Prisoners there were repeatedly beaten, attacked with dogs, and raped. Lyddie England, guilty as she may be, is being used a scapegoat so that the institution that explicitly permitted and advocated those actions can get off scott free - the Army uses "civilian contractors" to run "interrogations". Why? Because these "civilians" exist in a legal loophole where theres no law with jurisdiction over therem. Rumsfeld has repeatedly defended the use of torture (that specific word, mind you, there's no playing of games about turning up the AC here) as a legitimate means of obtaining information. What the fuck is *wrong* with you that you think this is okay?
Greasemonkey will, though.
Nobody does this on Windows, either. Probably on Linux, using a framebuffer. Now, DirectX and Quartz do indeed talk directly to the hardware (simplified explanation, I know...), but the software talks to DX/Quartz, not the hardware. Same with games.
Get the hell off the output clause. It doesn't mean what you think it means. You don't get any sort of goddamn magic immunity to copyright because it was output from a GPL program. It is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to the copyright on screenshots of a program. It's even more irrelevant because X11 and X.org aren't even GPL. Sorry for the profanity but you're totally on the wrong track here and need to take a minute to actually figure out what you're talking about.
I know exactly what the GPL is and what it covers - far better than you, apparently. They're irrelevent because the copyright on the source code does not neccesarily cover copyrightable elements of an interface, which would be what you'd need to satisfy a pedantic lawyer seeking release for screenshots. The copyright on a screenshot of a program would lie with a) the programs creator, to the degree that the interface is copyrightable, and b) with the theme creator, to the degree that the elements of the theme UI are copyrightable. The license of the X server (which isn't fucking GPLed anyway), of GTK, of GTKs theme engine, or anything else aren't important.
2) Irrelevant.
A) The GPLs output clause does NOT remove copyright from output that would otherwise be copyrighted. If I write a program that outputs popular music, is that music still copyrighted? In fact, the GPLs output clause is a clarification that the GPL isn't viral with regards to produced works, such as the output of GCC, and has nothing to do with any other copyrights that might exist on the output. This is why Bison has a specific exemption on output, for example. The theme engine can have any license it wants, it has no bearing whatsoever on whether a screenshot would infringe. If you thought about this for 20 seconds you'd probably understand it.
B1) Broadly correct, if simplistic. Copyright law, for example, does not support the idea that internal distribution doesn't count.
B2) Correct, but irrelevent.
B3) True, and thats why the copyright of the application AND the theme are important
B4) Irrevelent, and only sort of correct
Trade dress, by the way, is a commonly used term for the aggregate of trademarks used in a product.
Killing another human is the ultimate in putting your own more and mental comfort above the phsycial well-being of another - even more so when you then convince yourself that it's justified. At the very least, the position of the pacifist is consistent - logically, a bombing of US troops in Iraq is a fully justified action of self-defense by an oppressed populace.
If you think there wasn't any lying and overstating of facts about his weapons programs, you're the one who's delusional - his nuclear capacity was grossly overstated. His chemical capacity was stated as *current* and *real*, not some hypothetical program he might have managed to bring up in 6 months. It's hard to objectively fault his treatment of the UN inspectors, who were overall satisfied with the access they had (and who's analysis of Saddams capabilities has been repeatedly confirmed post invasion), and Saddams reaction to the (factual) claim that CIA agents were attempting to infiltrate the weapons inspection teams was actually fairly measured, especially considering that we've tried to assassinate him before. If on the off chance that the US *ever* allowed US inspection of it's arsenal, we'd arrest and probably execute Iraqi spies that were discovered.
Repeating the mantra "We didn't find WMD" is fucking *important*, because Saddam was claimed to be a clear, present and current threat to the US, with current, actual, NBC capability. It should be obvious to anyone who's not brain damaged that if Saddam needed the sanctions lifted to start his WMD programs, then the sanctions were working and the correct response isn't to invade him, but to maintain the sanctions programs. And thats granting you your 6 months estimate, which is from the exact same sources that claimed he had them already - not exactly a proven source of reliable information on Saddams weapons programs.
So who exactly is swallowing what propaganda here? The pre-invasion hype about his WMD, from Colin Powell's UN presentation to Bush's State of the Union address, has been proven in hindsight to be grossly misinformed. Upon further inspection, it seems very likely that it wasn't a simple case of poor analysis combined with paranoia, but that there was intentional selection and interpertation done to create a false impression. I tend to grant the benefit of the doubt to everyone, so I'm not jumping right on the "OMG they lied for the invasion" line, but the reasons given, to the US people, to the international community, and the Congress about our reasons for invasion were *wrong*. That demands a little bit more respect and addressing than the sort of frantic backpedalling and spin thats the standard Bush adminstration party line.
And just to correct this stupid goddamn "own civilians" thing, it doesn't matter, okay? They weren't "his" civilians any more than the Native Americans were "our" civilians or the Palestinians are Israels civilians. He gassed a bunch of people, and thats bad, and you don't need to try to make it "more bad".
By the way, according to your own logic here, there's no reason we should be upset about 9/11, OR the gassing of the Kurds - they aren't any more (or less) deserving of sympathy than civilian deaths in Nagasaki, or Dresden, or London.
This, of course, is why people decided that full-blown pacifism is the only way - because once a cycle of violence starts ever step simply escalates and becomes "justified" by the previous atrocities.
Now, granted, the Japanese culture of war was *extremely* harsh and the atrocities commited were extreme. But that doesn't make other atrocities okay.
War is about the demonization of the enemy - the psychology that makes a Japanese soldier feel okay about (horribly) torturing someone to death to maintain order in a camp is exactly the same as the one that lets someone feel okay about killing (horribly) tens of thousand of civilians in an attempt to force an opponent into surrender. War is a nasty, violent, terrible thing and glorifying it only leads to more atrocities - no matter how bad your enemy is.
Sure, you won't die if you don't have bnetd. On the other hand, it's no big deal if you DO have it, either. The piracy claim is specious at best, and while for some reason gets away with shit in EULAs that other industries wouldn't dream of, usage restrictions like "you can only use this product with our other product" have been tossed before.
The output clause is totally irrelevant because a) the output clause only applies to works under the GPL. The copyright violated by a screenshot would be the copyright of the theme creator, not the person who wrote the theme engine. So the license of the engine or, indeed, of Gtk itself is irrelevent. Whats important is the license of the theme, and of the specific piece of software you're screenshotting. The theme should have an explicit license, most of them are LGPL or some Creative Commons, and therefore should have no problems with screenshots. The software itself is potentially more complicated, because the layout and look & feel may be protected, and the rights granted by (L)GPL do *not* extend to that - thats why the Firefox trade dress is protected, for example.
It's called "JScript" on Windows. JavaScript is a Netscape-ism. JScript is Microsofts implementation of the ECMAScript standard, and, as with all their implementations of standards, they document where they deviate from the standard. However, there are very few places where they don't implement the standard (any? I'm not sure), and ECMAScript explicitly allows for extensions. So it doesn't matter how much you add, you can't be non-standard as long as you implement what the standard has.
The GUI parts of .NET are not supported by Mono, and GNUStep is a pale shadow of Apples Cocoa in terms of scope and functionality. Both are certainly usable but are not drop-in replacements that can magically make .NET or Cocoa code cross-platform.
Qt is very heavily invested in the "enhanced C++" provided by the usage of MOC (for example, the new foreach keyword they add in Qt4), so I don't think it's going away any time soon. You can certainly replicate the functionality that Qt provides via the MOC using sufficently sophisticated macros & templates but Trolltech has decided to embrace the enhanced syntatic sugar at the expense of technical correctness or standards compliance (people argue that Qt code is 'standard' C++ code, but they're being pedantic. Qt requires MOC to be run, plain & simple, and is therefore a meta-language on top of C++, not C++ itself). Personally, I don't like the solution (I'm a former Qt user who switched to wxWidgets), but there's plenty of people who don't mind.
I presume it's a reference to an (apparently fake)interview with the president of Nintendo from a while back, where he told Balmer to lick his tiny yellow balls. http://www.gamerah.com/noticias.php?bias=180