I don't see the relevance... In climate data, that "suggests" global warming, and then the assumption that it is our doing.
Either you're hopelessly biased or you don't understand science. Science is the process by which we hypothesize various things, then test to see which one has the most support, via a semi-formal method. Science never "proves" anything absolutely. It doesn't prove that gravity exists or how it works. It just very, very strongly suggests it.
In order for a rational person to believe anthropogenic global warming is not happening they need to either reject science entirely or they need to have a competing theory with more support. You just hypothesized that the changing climate is the result of natural processes, but if you're being rational, you can't believe that until that theory has more scientific evidence than global warming being largely the result of human influence. That is simply not the consensus of the experimentation and modeling I've seen to date, by a huge margin.
There is always room for an alternate model of global warming. Creating such a model and then creating falsifiable tests to see if it holds up has been a large endeavor among many very well funded scientists. The thing is, none of them have panned out or produced results that compare favorably to man-made global warming. For you to not accept that global warming is most likely strongly influenced by human actions you have to picking and choosing as to when you believe in the scientific method and when you don't.
Open Government would show action behind words. Instead, we're subjected to more of the secretive subterfuge that we all had gotten used to during the Bush years. Secret meetings, closed documents, short review periods before votes on multi-thousand page legislation.
Actually, Obama did pretty well with forcing open discussion of the healthcare legislation, even if most of the Republicans refused to actually do much more than recite rehearsed talking points. What's interesting is if you follow the links to the Drupal conference presentation it shows how they added webcams so you can see and hear meetings happening in the Whitehouse, obviously not all of the rooms, but still a huge step towards opening things up. The same goes for publishing data.
Clearly the current administration is not where we'd like it to be, but it has actually taken steps in the right direction, and publishing code it uses and for that matter using open source projects instead of handing pork over to vendors for locking us into their proprietary solutions is certainly not "same as the old boss". Give credit where it is due.
Nope, the code was almost certainly produced by a contractor and thus the copyrights vests in the contractor in the first instance.
Umm that was the third of the three options I cited. I don't see that it is by any means a certainty however. It looks like the guy running the project at the whitehouse is a coder and has employees that are the same.
. At this point the British Government has gone way beyond open source to open data.
Open protocols and formats (I assume this is what you mean) is a huge and important feature, although to say the British government has moved to it is a bit of an overstatement. I'd note that open source coding, pretty much leads to open protocols and formats because it means there is a reference implementation of any data format or protocol. In theory it could be obfuscated, but that is not what happens in the real world.
Rather than having this bizarre obsession with open source on the desktop...
Umm, who uses Drupal modules on the desktop? This article is about OSS on the server.
...I wish people could take a look at the bigger picture of government IT contracting and ask why every IT project attempted turns into a fiasco.
A lot of it has to do with closed bid contracting, inside dealing, lack of transparency and lack of oversight. Open source in government helps this because you aren't paying people to re-implement anything and developers can't hide what they're doing as easily or pretend they're writing large amounts of code when they've only committed a few lines to the public repositories. The Obama administration has taken a few steps in this direction and toward publishing government data in open formats easily machine readable, but more can be done.
The amount spent on desktop and O/S apps is a drop in the bucket compared to what has been wasted on the NHS IT system.
Moving to open source for servers will almost certainly reduce long term costs for large projects such as this. The desktop can benefit as well, but the ability to take competitive bids on everything, when exercised, makes open source in both areas a huge financial win.
So I'm curious when you say, "I have a lot of complaints about this current administration" what are they?
For the most part I agree with you. But I do agree with the previous poster in that I too have a lot of complaints about this current administration. Handling of the ACTA comes to mind, along with appointing RIAA lawyers to positions within the DoJ seems pretty scary. Their chiming in and interfering with the Joel Tenenbaum case on behalf of their former employees is repugnant to me and seems to directly contradict Obama's campaign promises about lobbyists and industry insiders role in his administration. He has done nothing about allowing US citizens to buy drugs from Canada as he promised. He has not stopped no bid contracts above $25K as he said he would, although he has made some noise, nothing that sticks.
That said, I'll second the person who responded with regard to credit card reform and I'd add I was very happy to hear about his new policy on former executive branch employees and lobbyists (can't lobby for years after being one, can't be hired on if you were a lobbyist) but saddened that he signed so many waivers making exceptions to this rule. For the most part, he's exceeded my expectations as well but there are certainly things to dislike.
I am at a loss to understand the vehement reaction of negative groups like the so-called "Tea Party" to this president.
This seems mostly to be because marketing is more powerful than truth. People want a different option to what they see as a frightening change, even though few of them can explain what that change is or why they find it frightening. The tea party has disparate goals and many people are trying to make use of them for entertainment dollars or for political gain. It's a movement of unfocused anger and fear and also a way to disassociate with the Republican party whose approval is in the toilet, while still advocating all the things that party supposedly supports.
What an insightful observation! I'd guess the developers just followed the usual procedure and attached the GPL license text.
This is one of three possibilities. The other two being, they started using the code from open sourced modules and thus are still bound by that license or they contracted the work out and the copyright was reassigned to the whitehouse, in which case they can license it.
Can Drupal modules be released as "public domain" even if the rest of the code is GPL?
Drupal modules can be closed source or have any license.
Since the Federal Government has no copyright to transfer, it's probably not even possible for them to give the code to the Drupal developers and let them place it under the GPL or transfer the rights to the FSF.
As I said, the works are either public domain (not really a bad thing) or GPL, but it all depends upon how on the ball the white house people are with regard to federal copyright laws.
This has nothing to do with the President or probably even his CTO that he nominated. It was probably just some developer that the federal government has hired who recommended the use of Drupal and suggested open sourcing the modules that they developed.
I'm curious as to why you think that. Is it because you have information we don't or do you just have a bias against the current administration so you mentally refuse to assign credit to them for acts you approve of?
In case you're interested in reality, this project was the baby of David Cole, a well known Drupal developer and OSS supporter who was appointed by Obama to several positions in the White House technical staff (currently senior advisor to the CIO) and who previously worked as data analyst for the Obama campaign and later on the transition team planning the new infrastructure. Now he probably did not come up with the idea since he just gave a talk with the guy who open sourced 24 Drupal modules developed by the New York State Senate. (An event that seems to have slipped under the radar of Slashdot.)
Re:I wonder what the DOJ will have to say...
on
Apple To Buy ARM?
·
· Score: 1
Apple recently took over PA Semi and have influential holdings in other chip developers/manufacturers, so yes, it would be market consolidation, and yes, it would have a negative effect on competition.
P.A. Semi was a fabless chip design firm and not even a large one. I guess you could claim that would make for consolidation in the chip design business, Apple also already had chip designers on staff, but I don't think the courts would consider such consolidation significant. ARM makes a huge portion of the chips in embedded market, but don't have anything close to that influence on the chip design market.
No, they didn't. They released the code like they had to according to the license -- a bare minimum -- but they never contributed in a meaningful way to khtml.
Umm, Dave Hyatt at Apple went back and documented portions of code specifically to make things easier for the KHTML team, who did not want to take all the changes because they had some different design goals. Apple backported changes themselves into the KHTML CVS tree to make granular changes easier and many of the KHTML team are contributors to Apple's SVN repository for Webkit. Apple also open sourced the Javascript engine even though all that code is original Apple creations. Heck the KHTML team is in the process of moving their changes into Webkit and abandoning their old fork.
Seriously, where do you come up with this misinformation?
However, looking at the link that you provided, check the right-most link... Almost every "open source" entry there is "Used In" MAC OSX or Xcode. So, fine... they are open-source with their own platform, and only to an extent. You have to first buy something Apple before you can utilize their "open source", kind of a conundrum, don't you think?
Your assertion is completely wrong. Running Chrome on Linux, oh yeah it has code from Apple. Using LLVM for compiling stuff on Solaris, Apple code, no Apple platform. Using CUPs to print on FreeBSD... Apple code, no Apple platform. In fact, most of the stuff Apple licenses as open source they do because they are useful on other platforms so more people use and contribute.
My point is, open source material that funnels the developer to a SINGLE platform that costs them money is not much to brag about.
Where you got the idea that this is the case is beyond me. Seriously, Webkit is in use almost every platform I can think of and Apple wrote a lot of the code.
When Christianity is at odds with a scientific interpretation of history, Christianity are the moonbats.
tribe's geographical origins that contradict their traditional stories
So, left-wing postmodern cultural relativists, where is your FSM now?
Oh don't worry, we think their religious beliefs are just as irrational. The thing is, most of us don't object to people holding irrational religious beliefs. We object to them applying those beliefs to undermine human rights and retard the progress of science. Personally, I believe in an inherent human right to privacy and to control over how my genetic information is used by others. If you want to study my genes, ask permission and I may or may not grant it. That seems completely reasonable. If a christian is unwilling to give a blood sample to be used to study the origin of man, that's fine with me too.
In short, it sounds like these natives are being irrational, but I'm fine with that so long as they don't try to impose those beliefs on me, change what is taught in government sponsored science classes at schools to something unscientific, or try to undermine the progress of science in some other way.
Attempting to analyze morals and values objectively -- like a sociopath does -- and ignore some "built-in" human elements, you'll never understand the reasoning.
I see. The problem we're having is you're misusing the word "reasoning" when what you really mean is thinking and deciding. "Reasoning" implies rational beliefs based upon reason, not subjective or irrational decision making processes.
A psychologist could also better explain the sexual maturity stages of children, and why viewing porn has a greater negative effect on children (and adults, for that matter).
Perhaps they could, except for the fact that the body of research to date shows no causation from viewing porn to any quantifiable negative effect. At least that is my reading of the literature. Do you have some reference or study you think shows otherwise?
He could go on to explain the possible negative effects of viewing violence as well, and the implications of blocking violence from the mind of a child...
That's a very odd phrase. "Blocking violence from the mind?" Anyway, there are quantifiable studies of the effects of violence upon children. The matter is certainly not settled and there is more research to be done, but at least there is real scientific evidence to support negative effects of violence. That's why I find it odd Apple would claim blocking the former is a moral imperative but the latter is not. That's why I asked for a consistent explanation of the reasoning that would make sense to block the former and not the latter. No one has been able to provide it or even a theory of what it could be.
You've already had the reasoning explained to you a hundred times by the unprofessional -- so either you're the unreasonable one or you need a professional to explain it to you.
I'll forgive your misunderstanding because of your failure to understand what "reasoning" is. I've had people assert violence and pornography are bad for kids. I've not had anyone reply and explain what rational basis they have for those beliefs and what reasoning makes sense to block porn and not violence for moral reasons. For that matter, when I asked people what the reasoning was, no one responded except yourself to say you can't explain it and an expert in things not reasoned could help.
Re:I wonder what the DOJ will have to say...
on
Apple To Buy ARM?
·
· Score: 1
Look at the fuss the EU made over the Oracle/Sun deal because of MySQL and there's far more competition in the database market.
That's because it was two major database vendors merging, hence reducing competition in the database market. Apple is not in the same business as ARM, so the merger of the two companies does not reduce competition in either the phone or embedded processor market. There is potential for abuse, but it is not market consolidation.
This deal wouldn't stand a chance of getting past the EU without at minimum severe restrictions on what Apple could do with ARM once they took it over.
All the relevant restrictions are already in place in the form of standard competition laws. The EU need not enact any specific restrictions.
To clarify, vertical integration is weakly regulated. Mergers with potential for vertical integration can be challenged under rule of reason if they are likely to reduce competition. Likewise internal vertical integration practices, but only price fixing using vertical integration is explicitly illegal (sans a few state laws, mostly auto related). While regulatory bodies might look into an Apple-ARM merger they'd need some theory as to what Apple plans to do in order to interfere, unless Apple was explicitly overcharging to disadvantage competitors, or using differential pricing (as MS has done in the past but no one managed to convict them on).
The only thing Apple has a monopoly on is products that don't suck. Name one example where they've tried to use their monopoly in products that don't suck to capture a new market. It doesn't exist.
Well, in the US Apple could be considered to have monopoly influence on the digital music download market, although it is borderline. They certainly use their market share there to push their music jukebox software (iTunes.app).
In the past Apple has avoided anti-trust because of their market share (or lack of) and real competition from the clone makers. If Apple moves to stifle competition, they can be assured that the hammer will come down.
It might or might not, antitrust is very spottily enforced these days especially against US companies. And of course, this requires more than Apple gaining dominance in a market (like embedded CPUs). They would also have to abuse that market share. Pardon me if I'm oversimplifying here, but a lot of Slashdot readers seem more than a little confused on the topic. Apple gaining dominance in embedded CPUs doesn't mean they have to unbundle Safari and OS X from one another. They just can't require CPU buyers to install Safari or OS X on devices running that CPU.
It is, look it up. Young children exposed to hard core porn will have serious issues latter[sic] on in life, Issues with parenting, substance abuse, among others. It's pretty well studied.
Okay I did look it up. Google Scholar seems to show just the opposite, with correlations between pornography and violence against women actually having a slight negative correlation. The phrase used in the largest meta study I found was "a sizable body of literature showing no causative link".
Perhaps you have a study you were thinking of and would like to cite?
These people tend to object to the way that pornography depicts women and gender relations.
But Apple has a moral imperative to block porn, but not block normal TV that shows many of the same gender relations problems? Or for that matter, the writings of Hemmingway? What I was asking was the reasoning for blocking porn specifically, or porn except for Playboy and a few others and what's on Web pages. And do such depictions actually harm children?
But the sort of people who object to children watching porn on those grounds usually also object to kids viewing violence.
Except that's not what we're talking about. Supposedly Apple has a moral imperative to stop porn, but not to stop violence in applications on their device. So arguing that both are the same or similar issue makes my point, rather than refutes it.
And so on. Likewise, if your kids learn sexuality from porn, they'll end up with a lot of wrong, unrealistic notions about sex.
Agreed, but I think small amount of honest education is a better method than trying to censor the world. Let em know porn is fiction, like most TV, and is about as realistic.
I still say this is mostly marketing from Apple and I don't see a consistent and reasoned view that can claim porn hurts kids to the extent we need to censor it, but violence does not need to be censored for those same kids... and that does seem to be Apple's "moral" position right now.
This is a conversation better had with a licensed psychologist.
Why would you need a psychologist to explain a process of reasoning? If people do have a rational and consistent reason for their actions, surely someone can explain it. If you need a psychologist that, implies is is irrational and emotive, rather than reasoned. After all, psychologists are experts in dealing with emotion, not logic.
I am getting tired of people constantly bringing up this argument. Listen: Apple is anti-competitive, more than MS even with it's so called monopoly.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Seriously, you need a trust for anti-trust to apply. Sure you can have a trust of one company, but only if they have enough control of the market. The phrase you should be using is "not doing what I want". As in " Apple is not doing what I want, more than MS even with it's so called monopoly.
Really? MS needs to be broken up for bundling software? What about Apple for only allowing their software to run on their hardware?
So what? Buy a Dell. Buy from HP. Buy from Sony. Buy from any other OEM you want. They all sell complete computer systems in competition with Apple. If you don't like what Apple does, you have option.
Now suppose, however, you're CEO of HP. In buying components for the vast majority of those systems you're planning to sell, what choice do you have other than licensing Windows from MS, that won't get you replaced within the week? The answer is none. So what choice do you have about all the other crap MS bundles with it? Can you buy a cheaper version of Windows where you don't have to pay for the development of the included IE?
Lack of viable choices is a huge amount of power over customers. Using that power to gain in other markets breaks capitalism and we no longer get the best product winning. That's what MS does that is illegal and that hurts progress. Apple just competes in ways you don't like. So does every other company. Luckily, because they don't have power over you, you can just buy from a competitor that you like better.
I know market share plays a big role here (as in Apple doesn't have enough for it to matter) but they're way worse about their terms of use and forcing people to use their stuff than anyone else.
You can't buy competing products to everything Apple makes? Seriously, as CEO if you buy HP laptops for your company instead of Apple laptops you have no chance of competing and you're going to get canned? What is locking you into Apple products so strongly that none of their competitors are a viable option?
And Microsoft is the only company among the dozens that contract with this company that is sending over a team to either rectify the situation or find a new company to do business with.
Citation please.
What's your point? That someone else found it first? So what? MS isn't sitting on their hands and ignoring it, they are doing something to fix the problem.
My point is MS isn't actively looking for problems and insuring compliance among their suppliers as they should be or they would have found it first.
I'm bashing MS for ignoring human rights complaints against them for many, many years. If they say they'll look into one incident because it got too much publicity, that sounds like spin rather than a real commitment. I certainly condemn all companies with this attitude and I try to avoid doing business with them as well, including HP and Dell.
There are perfectly reasonable people who have no problem with children seeing Venus de Milo, breastfeeding mothers, or people sunbathing nude, but want to prevent children from seeing pornography.
I don't understand that reasoning. Perhaps you can explain it? I especially don't understand that reasoning among people who have no problem with their kids viewing violence. Perhaps you'd care to explain that reasoning as well?
How many parents are going to spend that much money on a phone for their kid? Instead of an iPhone a smart parent would just give their kid a "non-smart" phone.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see the relevance... In climate data, that "suggests" global warming, and then the assumption that it is our doing.
Either you're hopelessly biased or you don't understand science. Science is the process by which we hypothesize various things, then test to see which one has the most support, via a semi-formal method. Science never "proves" anything absolutely. It doesn't prove that gravity exists or how it works. It just very, very strongly suggests it.
In order for a rational person to believe anthropogenic global warming is not happening they need to either reject science entirely or they need to have a competing theory with more support. You just hypothesized that the changing climate is the result of natural processes, but if you're being rational, you can't believe that until that theory has more scientific evidence than global warming being largely the result of human influence. That is simply not the consensus of the experimentation and modeling I've seen to date, by a huge margin.
There is always room for an alternate model of global warming. Creating such a model and then creating falsifiable tests to see if it holds up has been a large endeavor among many very well funded scientists. The thing is, none of them have panned out or produced results that compare favorably to man-made global warming. For you to not accept that global warming is most likely strongly influenced by human actions you have to picking and choosing as to when you believe in the scientific method and when you don't.
Open Government would show action behind words. Instead, we're subjected to more of the secretive subterfuge that we all had gotten used to during the Bush years. Secret meetings, closed documents, short review periods before votes on multi-thousand page legislation.
Actually, Obama did pretty well with forcing open discussion of the healthcare legislation, even if most of the Republicans refused to actually do much more than recite rehearsed talking points. What's interesting is if you follow the links to the Drupal conference presentation it shows how they added webcams so you can see and hear meetings happening in the Whitehouse, obviously not all of the rooms, but still a huge step towards opening things up. The same goes for publishing data.
Clearly the current administration is not where we'd like it to be, but it has actually taken steps in the right direction, and publishing code it uses and for that matter using open source projects instead of handing pork over to vendors for locking us into their proprietary solutions is certainly not "same as the old boss". Give credit where it is due.
Nope, the code was almost certainly produced by a contractor and thus the copyrights vests in the contractor in the first instance.
Umm that was the third of the three options I cited. I don't see that it is by any means a certainty however. It looks like the guy running the project at the whitehouse is a coder and has employees that are the same.
. At this point the British Government has gone way beyond open source to open data.
Open protocols and formats (I assume this is what you mean) is a huge and important feature, although to say the British government has moved to it is a bit of an overstatement. I'd note that open source coding, pretty much leads to open protocols and formats because it means there is a reference implementation of any data format or protocol. In theory it could be obfuscated, but that is not what happens in the real world.
Rather than having this bizarre obsession with open source on the desktop...
Umm, who uses Drupal modules on the desktop? This article is about OSS on the server.
...I wish people could take a look at the bigger picture of government IT contracting and ask why every IT project attempted turns into a fiasco.
A lot of it has to do with closed bid contracting, inside dealing, lack of transparency and lack of oversight. Open source in government helps this because you aren't paying people to re-implement anything and developers can't hide what they're doing as easily or pretend they're writing large amounts of code when they've only committed a few lines to the public repositories. The Obama administration has taken a few steps in this direction and toward publishing government data in open formats easily machine readable, but more can be done.
The amount spent on desktop and O/S apps is a drop in the bucket compared to what has been wasted on the NHS IT system.
Moving to open source for servers will almost certainly reduce long term costs for large projects such as this. The desktop can benefit as well, but the ability to take competitive bids on everything, when exercised, makes open source in both areas a huge financial win.
So I'm curious when you say, "I have a lot of complaints about this current administration" what are they?
For the most part I agree with you. But I do agree with the previous poster in that I too have a lot of complaints about this current administration. Handling of the ACTA comes to mind, along with appointing RIAA lawyers to positions within the DoJ seems pretty scary. Their chiming in and interfering with the Joel Tenenbaum case on behalf of their former employees is repugnant to me and seems to directly contradict Obama's campaign promises about lobbyists and industry insiders role in his administration. He has done nothing about allowing US citizens to buy drugs from Canada as he promised. He has not stopped no bid contracts above $25K as he said he would, although he has made some noise, nothing that sticks.
That said, I'll second the person who responded with regard to credit card reform and I'd add I was very happy to hear about his new policy on former executive branch employees and lobbyists (can't lobby for years after being one, can't be hired on if you were a lobbyist) but saddened that he signed so many waivers making exceptions to this rule. For the most part, he's exceeded my expectations as well but there are certainly things to dislike.
I am at a loss to understand the vehement reaction of negative groups like the so-called "Tea Party" to this president.
This seems mostly to be because marketing is more powerful than truth. People want a different option to what they see as a frightening change, even though few of them can explain what that change is or why they find it frightening. The tea party has disparate goals and many people are trying to make use of them for entertainment dollars or for political gain. It's a movement of unfocused anger and fear and also a way to disassociate with the Republican party whose approval is in the toilet, while still advocating all the things that party supposedly supports.
What an insightful observation! I'd guess the developers just followed the usual procedure and attached the GPL license text.
This is one of three possibilities. The other two being, they started using the code from open sourced modules and thus are still bound by that license or they contracted the work out and the copyright was reassigned to the whitehouse, in which case they can license it.
Can Drupal modules be released as "public domain" even if the rest of the code is GPL?
Drupal modules can be closed source or have any license.
Since the Federal Government has no copyright to transfer, it's probably not even possible for them to give the code to the Drupal developers and let them place it under the GPL or transfer the rights to the FSF.
As I said, the works are either public domain (not really a bad thing) or GPL, but it all depends upon how on the ball the white house people are with regard to federal copyright laws.
This has nothing to do with the President or probably even his CTO that he nominated. It was probably just some developer that the federal government has hired who recommended the use of Drupal and suggested open sourcing the modules that they developed.
I'm curious as to why you think that. Is it because you have information we don't or do you just have a bias against the current administration so you mentally refuse to assign credit to them for acts you approve of?
In case you're interested in reality, this project was the baby of David Cole, a well known Drupal developer and OSS supporter who was appointed by Obama to several positions in the White House technical staff (currently senior advisor to the CIO) and who previously worked as data analyst for the Obama campaign and later on the transition team planning the new infrastructure. Now he probably did not come up with the idea since he just gave a talk with the guy who open sourced 24 Drupal modules developed by the New York State Senate. (An event that seems to have slipped under the radar of Slashdot.)
Apple recently took over PA Semi and have influential holdings in other chip developers/manufacturers, so yes, it would be market consolidation, and yes, it would have a negative effect on competition.
P.A. Semi was a fabless chip design firm and not even a large one. I guess you could claim that would make for consolidation in the chip design business, Apple also already had chip designers on staff, but I don't think the courts would consider such consolidation significant. ARM makes a huge portion of the chips in embedded market, but don't have anything close to that influence on the chip design market.
No, they didn't. They released the code like they had to according to the license -- a bare minimum -- but they never contributed in a meaningful way to khtml.
Umm, Dave Hyatt at Apple went back and documented portions of code specifically to make things easier for the KHTML team, who did not want to take all the changes because they had some different design goals. Apple backported changes themselves into the KHTML CVS tree to make granular changes easier and many of the KHTML team are contributors to Apple's SVN repository for Webkit. Apple also open sourced the Javascript engine even though all that code is original Apple creations. Heck the KHTML team is in the process of moving their changes into Webkit and abandoning their old fork.
Seriously, where do you come up with this misinformation?
However, looking at the link that you provided, check the right-most link... Almost every "open source" entry there is "Used In" MAC OSX or Xcode. So, fine... they are open-source with their own platform, and only to an extent. You have to first buy something Apple before you can utilize their "open source", kind of a conundrum, don't you think?
Your assertion is completely wrong. Running Chrome on Linux, oh yeah it has code from Apple. Using LLVM for compiling stuff on Solaris, Apple code, no Apple platform. Using CUPs to print on FreeBSD... Apple code, no Apple platform. In fact, most of the stuff Apple licenses as open source they do because they are useful on other platforms so more people use and contribute.
My point is, open source material that funnels the developer to a SINGLE platform that costs them money is not much to brag about.
Where you got the idea that this is the case is beyond me. Seriously, Webkit is in use almost every platform I can think of and Apple wrote a lot of the code.
When Christianity is at odds with a scientific interpretation of history, Christianity are the moonbats.
tribe's geographical origins that contradict their traditional stories
So, left-wing postmodern cultural relativists, where is your FSM now?
Oh don't worry, we think their religious beliefs are just as irrational. The thing is, most of us don't object to people holding irrational religious beliefs. We object to them applying those beliefs to undermine human rights and retard the progress of science. Personally, I believe in an inherent human right to privacy and to control over how my genetic information is used by others. If you want to study my genes, ask permission and I may or may not grant it. That seems completely reasonable. If a christian is unwilling to give a blood sample to be used to study the origin of man, that's fine with me too.
In short, it sounds like these natives are being irrational, but I'm fine with that so long as they don't try to impose those beliefs on me, change what is taught in government sponsored science classes at schools to something unscientific, or try to undermine the progress of science in some other way.
Attempting to analyze morals and values objectively -- like a sociopath does -- and ignore some "built-in" human elements, you'll never understand the reasoning.
I see. The problem we're having is you're misusing the word "reasoning" when what you really mean is thinking and deciding. "Reasoning" implies rational beliefs based upon reason, not subjective or irrational decision making processes.
A psychologist could also better explain the sexual maturity stages of children, and why viewing porn has a greater negative effect on children (and adults, for that matter).
Perhaps they could, except for the fact that the body of research to date shows no causation from viewing porn to any quantifiable negative effect. At least that is my reading of the literature. Do you have some reference or study you think shows otherwise?
He could go on to explain the possible negative effects of viewing violence as well, and the implications of blocking violence from the mind of a child...
That's a very odd phrase. "Blocking violence from the mind?" Anyway, there are quantifiable studies of the effects of violence upon children. The matter is certainly not settled and there is more research to be done, but at least there is real scientific evidence to support negative effects of violence. That's why I find it odd Apple would claim blocking the former is a moral imperative but the latter is not. That's why I asked for a consistent explanation of the reasoning that would make sense to block the former and not the latter. No one has been able to provide it or even a theory of what it could be.
You've already had the reasoning explained to you a hundred times by the unprofessional -- so either you're the unreasonable one or you need a professional to explain it to you.
I'll forgive your misunderstanding because of your failure to understand what "reasoning" is. I've had people assert violence and pornography are bad for kids. I've not had anyone reply and explain what rational basis they have for those beliefs and what reasoning makes sense to block porn and not violence for moral reasons. For that matter, when I asked people what the reasoning was, no one responded except yourself to say you can't explain it and an expert in things not reasoned could help.
Look at the fuss the EU made over the Oracle/Sun deal because of MySQL and there's far more competition in the database market.
That's because it was two major database vendors merging, hence reducing competition in the database market. Apple is not in the same business as ARM, so the merger of the two companies does not reduce competition in either the phone or embedded processor market. There is potential for abuse, but it is not market consolidation.
This deal wouldn't stand a chance of getting past the EU without at minimum severe restrictions on what Apple could do with ARM once they took it over.
All the relevant restrictions are already in place in the form of standard competition laws. The EU need not enact any specific restrictions.
To clarify, vertical integration is weakly regulated. Mergers with potential for vertical integration can be challenged under rule of reason if they are likely to reduce competition. Likewise internal vertical integration practices, but only price fixing using vertical integration is explicitly illegal (sans a few state laws, mostly auto related). While regulatory bodies might look into an Apple-ARM merger they'd need some theory as to what Apple plans to do in order to interfere, unless Apple was explicitly overcharging to disadvantage competitors, or using differential pricing (as MS has done in the past but no one managed to convict them on).
The only thing Apple has a monopoly on is products that don't suck. Name one example where they've tried to use their monopoly in products that don't suck to capture a new market. It doesn't exist.
Well, in the US Apple could be considered to have monopoly influence on the digital music download market, although it is borderline. They certainly use their market share there to push their music jukebox software (iTunes.app).
In the past Apple has avoided anti-trust because of their market share (or lack of) and real competition from the clone makers. If Apple moves to stifle competition, they can be assured that the hammer will come down.
It might or might not, antitrust is very spottily enforced these days especially against US companies. And of course, this requires more than Apple gaining dominance in a market (like embedded CPUs). They would also have to abuse that market share. Pardon me if I'm oversimplifying here, but a lot of Slashdot readers seem more than a little confused on the topic. Apple gaining dominance in embedded CPUs doesn't mean they have to unbundle Safari and OS X from one another. They just can't require CPU buyers to install Safari or OS X on devices running that CPU.
It is, look it up. Young children exposed to hard core porn will have serious issues latter[sic] on in life, Issues with parenting, substance abuse, among others. It's pretty well studied.
Okay I did look it up. Google Scholar seems to show just the opposite, with correlations between pornography and violence against women actually having a slight negative correlation. The phrase used in the largest meta study I found was "a sizable body of literature showing no causative link".
Perhaps you have a study you were thinking of and would like to cite?
These people tend to object to the way that pornography depicts women and gender relations.
But Apple has a moral imperative to block porn, but not block normal TV that shows many of the same gender relations problems? Or for that matter, the writings of Hemmingway? What I was asking was the reasoning for blocking porn specifically, or porn except for Playboy and a few others and what's on Web pages. And do such depictions actually harm children?
But the sort of people who object to children watching porn on those grounds usually also object to kids viewing violence.
Except that's not what we're talking about. Supposedly Apple has a moral imperative to stop porn, but not to stop violence in applications on their device. So arguing that both are the same or similar issue makes my point, rather than refutes it.
And so on. Likewise, if your kids learn sexuality from porn, they'll end up with a lot of wrong, unrealistic notions about sex.
Agreed, but I think small amount of honest education is a better method than trying to censor the world. Let em know porn is fiction, like most TV, and is about as realistic.
I still say this is mostly marketing from Apple and I don't see a consistent and reasoned view that can claim porn hurts kids to the extent we need to censor it, but violence does not need to be censored for those same kids... and that does seem to be Apple's "moral" position right now.
I don't understand that reasoning
This is a conversation better had with a licensed psychologist.
Why would you need a psychologist to explain a process of reasoning? If people do have a rational and consistent reason for their actions, surely someone can explain it. If you need a psychologist that, implies is is irrational and emotive, rather than reasoned. After all, psychologists are experts in dealing with emotion, not logic.
I am getting tired of people constantly bringing up this argument. Listen: Apple is anti-competitive, more than MS even with it's so called monopoly.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Seriously, you need a trust for anti-trust to apply. Sure you can have a trust of one company, but only if they have enough control of the market. The phrase you should be using is "not doing what I want". As in " Apple is not doing what I want, more than MS even with it's so called monopoly.
Really? MS needs to be broken up for bundling software? What about Apple for only allowing their software to run on their hardware?
So what? Buy a Dell. Buy from HP. Buy from Sony. Buy from any other OEM you want. They all sell complete computer systems in competition with Apple. If you don't like what Apple does, you have option.
Now suppose, however, you're CEO of HP. In buying components for the vast majority of those systems you're planning to sell, what choice do you have other than licensing Windows from MS, that won't get you replaced within the week? The answer is none. So what choice do you have about all the other crap MS bundles with it? Can you buy a cheaper version of Windows where you don't have to pay for the development of the included IE?
Lack of viable choices is a huge amount of power over customers. Using that power to gain in other markets breaks capitalism and we no longer get the best product winning. That's what MS does that is illegal and that hurts progress. Apple just competes in ways you don't like. So does every other company. Luckily, because they don't have power over you, you can just buy from a competitor that you like better.
I know market share plays a big role here (as in Apple doesn't have enough for it to matter) but they're way worse about their terms of use and forcing people to use their stuff than anyone else.
You can't buy competing products to everything Apple makes? Seriously, as CEO if you buy HP laptops for your company instead of Apple laptops you have no chance of competing and you're going to get canned? What is locking you into Apple products so strongly that none of their competitors are a viable option?
Getting paid by the number of times you spin this or something? Two nearly identical replies to my same post with minor formatting changes?
And Microsoft is the only company among the dozens that contract with this company that is sending over a team to either rectify the situation or find a new company to do business with.
Citation please.
What's your point? That someone else found it first? So what? MS isn't sitting on their hands and ignoring it, they are doing something to fix the problem.
My point is MS isn't actively looking for problems and insuring compliance among their suppliers as they should be or they would have found it first.
I'm bashing MS for ignoring human rights complaints against them for many, many years. If they say they'll look into one incident because it got too much publicity, that sounds like spin rather than a real commitment. I certainly condemn all companies with this attitude and I try to avoid doing business with them as well, including HP and Dell.
It's called context. A child seeing nudity in say an educational setting is a lot different than porn, hence breasts being different than pornography.
But I didn't write "breasts" I wrote "boobies" which is not exactly the same, eh?
There are perfectly reasonable people who have no problem with children seeing Venus de Milo, breastfeeding mothers, or people sunbathing nude, but want to prevent children from seeing pornography.
I don't understand that reasoning. Perhaps you can explain it? I especially don't understand that reasoning among people who have no problem with their kids viewing violence. Perhaps you'd care to explain that reasoning as well?
How many parents are going to spend that much money on a phone for their kid? Instead of an iPhone a smart parent would just give their kid a "non-smart" phone.
A couple hundred thousand so far.