So you are complaining that Microsoft changes too much. Another commenter in this story is complaining that Microsoft is complaining that the world is changing too fast and MS can't keep up.
I suppose being a web dev is bad, too, because CSS keeps changing and browsers keep changing and... man, why can't we just learn something and use it for the next 20 years?
I never read the ICQ EULA, but I didn't use it very long and had a fairly low number. I forget the number though, ha. Interesting though. Now I feel like reading all my EULAs just for the fun of it...:P
Perhaps it'd be better to say that there are some cases where other issues can be emphasized by the additional stress or whatever caused by quitting.
But a single anecdote where someone was pressed and belittled into doing it with "willpower" as a means of disproving an entire method seems silly.
And I think the belittling aspect is huge. It's one thing to try to do it "cold turkey." It's another to tell someone that they aren't a real man, they're stupid, their weak, their pathetic, etc., if they can't do it. I don't know that that kind of social pressure is what people here are advocating. Belittling and berating people is not the best form of encouragement... unfortunately, it does appear to be what people like watching on TV and whatnot...
Oh, as far as Slashdot goes, maybe I should read at +5 or something.;) hehe. Actually, slashdot *cough* nerds *cough* seem to tend to be liberal on most issues, but on some issues they seem to really "get it." Probably because they spend most of their time looking at text on a screen and not even seeing the other person's skin color or something, I dunno. I do recall some comments back in the campaigning that referred to racism, especially when Obama stated that racism would be used by the Republican campaign. Also, it does appear that many voters did vote for Obama because he was black... which I find to be racist... but it seems many on Slashdot don't think so.:)
The sum of my arguments is thus: You've convinced me that there are people out there that claim that disagreement with Obama is due to racism. You've also convinced me that such claims are mostly made by idiots or hacks, and in a few rare cases are more nuanced then claim. You've failed to convince me that such claims are occurring at such a frequency to stifle dissent, nor warrant the amount of whining from conservatives and Republicans (for the record here, Republicans are not conservatives).
I can agree with that. I am unfortunately part of a party - based on my conservative beliefs, not Republican beliefs - that whines as much as the other party. It's stupid.
As far as racism, there does - from my real life experience - seem to be a distinct racism in the name of being non-racist. Affirmative Action, IMO, is one big racist legislation: force people to be racist in an effort to combat racism. We can disagree and argue about it, of course.
Anyways: I agree, it's overblown and "my" side falls into the "one person from that party said some stupid racist comment, so the entire party must be thinking that" trap, too.
1) Spanish Inquisition
2) Priests found shagging choirboys
3) Fundie televangelists banging gayboys
4) Salem
All wrong and shamefully done in the name of Christianity, and all of which cannot be condoned through the use of the Bible, basically. So what we have here are people claiming a name and doing acts that completely go against the very name they are claiming. Hm.
The Enemy is the idea that God would let Something This Bad happen to His People.
Non-Biblical. Just take a look at Job. God never told Job why those bad things happened to him. Yes, some people adhere to what you just said... and I don't see why I need to defend, shall we say, "real Christianity" against accusations directed at people that don't even apparently know what's in the Bible.
It'd be equivalent of you trying to defend the position of climate-change-is-happening from me when all I attack are the ignorant people that believe it and tell me all sorts of wrong things about it out of pure ignorance.
Basically: I met a climate change activist who lied to me about some facts. Therefore, all climate change activists are lying, and climate change is not real... because someone claiming to be a climate change activist told me something about it!!!
That's the approach people take. "These things were done in the name of Christianity!! Christianity must be false!!"
Additionally, the article seems to take some things for granted...
the reality is that every other browser has a more regular release cycle than IE does, and that keeps them relevant.
I guess Opera's release and development cycle(s) is why it is so popular!
The result is a strong perception that IE is lagging behind, no matter how great the major release versions are.
The perception that IE is lagging behind has nothing to do with a bad development cycle, it's more tied to... bad development and a not-very-good product.
and the browser's updates are pushed through Windows Update. The actual browser doesn't have its own updating system, and this is a large part of the reason that over 40 percent of users are still using IE6 and IE7.
That's an interesting assertion. The only backup he gives are numbers for browser stats.
On the whole, this seems like one guy doing an editorial and talking off the cuff. That's how it struck me, anyways.
You sound like you're arguing from information given to you by Al Gore. I'm not sure he's a trustworth source.
Since I think the Polar Bear thing is particularly funny (I think a lot of teen girls think they are so cute, in spite of the fact that they are apparently some of the most aggressive and violent bears), this is certainly not Fox News. nor are these folks. But with proof like simply SEEING them so far off shore and presuming global warming is the reason, it's so obvious that any criticism must be wrong! I guess since the food that Polar Bears eat - like seals - are remaining completely stationary while the snow/ice presumably recedes. I've seen reports that polar bears can swim anywhere from 60 to 100s of miles, so apparently they aren't completely sure.
To me, the Polar Bear thing is a good example of someone seeing something and it getting blown completely out of proportion and people like Al Gore picking up on it and trying to use it for their own gain. Al Gore does not appear to be struggling financially.
Gore shows an animation of a polar bear (very reminiscent of the Coca Cola bears) swimming pitifully in the sea trying to haul itself up onto the last piece of ice floating in the Arctic Ocean. In 2002, the World Wildlife Fund issued a report warning that global warming was endangering polar bears. Arctic sea ice is thawing sooner and this means that the bears who hunt seals on the ice have fewer opportunities to feed themselves. This week saw an alarming report that hungry polar bears are turning cannibal. Yet, the WWF report itself found that most bear populations are either stable or increasing (see page 9 of the report). And remember, polar bears evidently survived when Arctic temperatures were warmer 6000 years ago. Of course, if predictions that the entire Arctic Ocean will be ice free in 100 year turn out to be right, then the polar bears will have a problem.
(emphasis mine)
That "ice free" bit was a link to "sciencedaily.com."
There is no media sensationalism surrounding climate change
Mmmm, yes there is though... because the media has so sensationalized the global warming bit (i.e., man-made)... and I'm sure Al Gore's Nobel prize didn't help... that I think the normal/popular reaction to anything that refers to temperatures changing ("climate change" or "global warming" or "global cooling" or "ice age" or "polar bears") immediately brings to mind human-induced global warming.
But he's bad (read the summary, even!). He can't be a REAL scientist, because he disagrees with REAL science. Thus, he's obviously lying about his data and/or methodology... trust me.
The climate change denialists are a coalition of christian fundamentalist young earth creationists who see science as a threat to their religious beliefs, and tobacco companies who see science as a threat to their business plan. I think it is very likely that they would be motivated enough to create 61MB of hoax documents to further their cause
Comments like these bug me. Allow me to wax non-eloquent.
Denialists: Apparently, denying "climate change" is now a belief system and not founded on any real evidence. Of course, you may define "climate change" differently, but in the mass media and most people's minds, it appears to be taken to refer to human induced climate change. Nobody is sponsoring "climate change" legislation to put caps on volcanic eruption emissions. So, what are all the non-Christian-fundamentalist-young-earth-creationist's agendas do deny climate change even though they have apparently no evidence and are in the "faith based" grouping?
Christian fundamentalist... create... hoax: Apparently, these Christian fundamentalists believe so strongly in their Bible that they are willing to lie to protect it. So much for being truthful, not bearing false witness, telling the truth, not lying, telling the truth... did I mention truth? The Bible is extremely clear that truth is important. I don't know what Christians you've come into contact, but if you think they're willing to lie, then you've met some very bad people that are completely dragging the name of the God of the Bible through the mud. And you don't care, you apparently just want to go along with it as though they represent Christian fundamentalist young earth creationists all over the world. (by the way, I know some liberal atheist evolutionists that lie through their teeth, I guess all of them do!)
... see science as a threat to their religious beliefs: Perhaps in practice you see that they do because they disagree with some science; however, the way you put it makes it sound like it's logically impossible to have a Christian-fundamentalist-young-earth-creationist scientist. It's not. They exist. What's more, there are arguments and books about how their worldview is more consistent than an atheists. But that aside, most Christians that I know do not hold science to be a threat to their religious beliefs any more than they hold atheism to be a threat to their religious beliefs. If they think that any... human "system" (whether good or bad) is a threat to their "religious beliefs," then they have their priorities wrong and are not "Christian fundamentalist." At least, not the ones I know. The Bible is quite clear about man-made vs. God-made systems and who will win. If they don't believe that, then they are just another religious group... and are not really Christians - or at least, not really Biblical. More of a cultic man-following man-pleasing group. And I'm not sure how many of them are young-earth creationists, as that tends to be a very Bible-centered/Bible-focused belief... and seems to not typically coincide with completely going against other parts of the Bible. Unless you get into some of the cults... but then they add so much to the Bible anyway...
I could go on talking about it, but that's enough. As for tobacco companies, I wouldn't know.
And by the way... what do you think about Al Gore (and the rest)? He seems to be doing ok with his business plan. Or do you think that "corruption" is only on one side of this debate? That if you believe that humans are causing global warming you are obviously free from corruption... and hypocrisy and greed and... ?
People. Slashdot. Senators (Joe Wilson?). Talk show hosts (non-conservative).
Regarding Joe Wilson, which was high profile... here's my view: Yes, he was definitely wrong and "out of decorum" or whatever. But he got a huge amount of backlash - plenty more than people got for saying the same things to and about Bush (not sure if it was on the floor though). So Wilson was wrong, I agree. And I'm a Republican.
But to say that Wilson told Obama that he was lying because Joe Wilson is a racist is absolutely ridiculous. Unless they know something that I don't know.
And there was the entire campaign where Obama himself referred to racism and that the Republican campaign was going to use it... before it occurred (I don't think it actually did occur, there are plenty of black conservatives, too!).
I don't think it was a great idea to give the prize to him but it the idea that we don't give nobel peace prizes to people to encourage/support/recognize potential work is just wrong.
Recognize potential work? That sounds strange to me. I guess I'm used to getting rewards based on something I actually HAVE done, not something that I said I MIGHT do... if I feel like it and if it's popular at the time.
[...] Carl von Ossietsky for his journalism and peace activism against the Nazis.
Ah-ha. He did journalism and peace activism. He did a lot more than give a few speeches while campaigning for a political office.
And we all know how well he actually succeeded. Not at all. But that prize was completely reasonable.
So the potential work, while encouraged and supported, never happened? Strange thing to reward. But he did do some actual work, right? More than speeches or writing two books about himself?
There's a long history of giving the prizes to people who promise future work.
You mentioned one... and he was already involved in doing his work... one counts as a "long history" I guess?
Moreover, Obama's win was a real accomplishment as the first black US President.
Then he should get a marketing and PR award. Being the first black US President is not a qualification for a peace prize (or shouldn't be) and it should not have been a qualification for being President. The fact that so many people complain about those racist bigots that dare to disagree with the first black President are only displaying one thing to me: they are so racist that they can't see past the color of his skin and think it's his most important trait. I happen to not care that he's black. Somehow that's racist now. All this time I thought I was supposed to treat blacks and whites equal. I guess not. Sorry, that was a rant that came out of your comment - there's nothing inherently wrong with being the first black President. But there's a lot wrong with voting for him just for the sake of that.
Also as a matter of international peace having a US President who doesn't think that bombing everything is a solution and doesn't go to war due to Biblical verses,
Yup, Bush did nothing but bomb many, many countries. Aside from fulfilling a lot of his campaign promises within his first year of office, that is. And aside from the fact that we were attacked before we went to bomb (unless you buy into conspiracy theories only when it's about a President you don't like). And aside from the fact that he actually viewed the terrorist wackos for what they really are - terrorist wackos. And besides, Obama can't seem to make up his mind about anything, not even about the war in Afghanistan that he said he supported and would finish. Unfortunately, I'm not sure he typically referred to winning, just "finishing." What I am hoping to not happen is another Vietnam.
So even if accomplishments were necessary Obama had them.
He talked a lot. What's he done so far? He still supported the war in Afghanistan, presumably, just not Iraq (and by the way, a lot of Congress supported the war in Iraq along with Bush). I had no idea that having a proper Biblical hermeneutic was a qualification for the Nobel Peace Prize, maybe I should try out for it? I still haven't seen these accomplishments of Obama, aside from, as usual - he's not Bush (or at least, he's didn't talk like Bush while campaigning). He was nominated very soon after he was elected, as I recall, so the nomination even was based on his campaign. Because we all know that people are the most truthful while campaigning.
My main point, though, is that we are both trusting in other eyes, anyway. So... what if I trust in some employees at Microsoft? I'm not sure how many people actually look at SELinux aside from those that work on it...
I agree, open source is less likely to have intentional back doors... but I'm not sure all employees at Microsoft are bought out even if some of the higher management is, so I'm not sure it's reasonable to assume nobody at Microsoft is concerned about the same thing - people with access to the code, that is.
Slashdot Mirror
how many would do it IRL if they were guaranteed they could get away with it.
A lot.
The same could be said about music, but that doesn't go over so well :)
So you are complaining that Microsoft changes too much. Another commenter in this story is complaining that Microsoft is complaining that the world is changing too fast and MS can't keep up.
I suppose being a web dev is bad, too, because CSS keeps changing and browsers keep changing and ... man, why can't we just learn something and use it for the next 20 years?
I never read the ICQ EULA, but I didn't use it very long and had a fairly low number. I forget the number though, ha. Interesting though. Now I feel like reading all my EULAs just for the fun of it... :P
Perhaps it'd be better to say that there are some cases where other issues can be emphasized by the additional stress or whatever caused by quitting.
But a single anecdote where someone was pressed and belittled into doing it with "willpower" as a means of disproving an entire method seems silly.
And I think the belittling aspect is huge. It's one thing to try to do it "cold turkey." It's another to tell someone that they aren't a real man, they're stupid, their weak, their pathetic, etc., if they can't do it. I don't know that that kind of social pressure is what people here are advocating. Belittling and berating people is not the best form of encouragement... unfortunately, it does appear to be what people like watching on TV and whatnot...
Corporations use them to deny customers LEGAL rights
Name some? (not a troll, I'm curious... and stupid or ignorant and can't think of any off the top of my head)
Unfortunately, all of which must be purchased from Apple as well.
And will be overpriced... sorry, I mean will have "high end features" and "really good support." ;)
Oh, as far as Slashdot goes, maybe I should read at +5 or something. ;) hehe. Actually, slashdot *cough* nerds *cough* seem to tend to be liberal on most issues, but on some issues they seem to really "get it." Probably because they spend most of their time looking at text on a screen and not even seeing the other person's skin color or something, I dunno. I do recall some comments back in the campaigning that referred to racism, especially when Obama stated that racism would be used by the Republican campaign. Also, it does appear that many voters did vote for Obama because he was black... which I find to be racist... but it seems many on Slashdot don't think so. :)
The sum of my arguments is thus: You've convinced me that there are people out there that claim that disagreement with Obama is due to racism. You've also convinced me that such claims are mostly made by idiots or hacks, and in a few rare cases are more nuanced then claim. You've failed to convince me that such claims are occurring at such a frequency to stifle dissent, nor warrant the amount of whining from conservatives and Republicans (for the record here, Republicans are not conservatives).
I can agree with that. I am unfortunately part of a party - based on my conservative beliefs, not Republican beliefs - that whines as much as the other party. It's stupid.
As far as racism, there does - from my real life experience - seem to be a distinct racism in the name of being non-racist. Affirmative Action, IMO, is one big racist legislation: force people to be racist in an effort to combat racism. We can disagree and argue about it, of course.
Anyways: I agree, it's overblown and "my" side falls into the "one person from that party said some stupid racist comment, so the entire party must be thinking that" trap, too.
They did? Hmmm. Tèstíng.
I am shöcked.
1) Spanish Inquisition 2) Priests found shagging choirboys 3) Fundie televangelists banging gayboys 4) Salem
All wrong and shamefully done in the name of Christianity, and all of which cannot be condoned through the use of the Bible, basically. So what we have here are people claiming a name and doing acts that completely go against the very name they are claiming. Hm.
The Enemy is the idea that God would let Something This Bad happen to His People.
Non-Biblical. Just take a look at Job. God never told Job why those bad things happened to him. Yes, some people adhere to what you just said... and I don't see why I need to defend, shall we say, "real Christianity" against accusations directed at people that don't even apparently know what's in the Bible.
It'd be equivalent of you trying to defend the position of climate-change-is-happening from me when all I attack are the ignorant people that believe it and tell me all sorts of wrong things about it out of pure ignorance.
Basically: I met a climate change activist who lied to me about some facts. Therefore, all climate change activists are lying, and climate change is not real... because someone claiming to be a climate change activist told me something about it!!!
That's the approach people take. "These things were done in the name of Christianity!! Christianity must be false!!"
Faulty induction at it's best :)
Touche-with-the-accent-that-I'm-lazy-to-put-on. I usually try to be good about that, too.
The author of the article seems to think IE should be treated separately from Windows.
I guess Konqueror should have it's own update system, the OS update system isn't good enough?
Additionally, the article seems to take some things for granted...
the reality is that every other browser has a more regular release cycle than IE does, and that keeps them relevant.
I guess Opera's release and development cycle(s) is why it is so popular!
The result is a strong perception that IE is lagging behind, no matter how great the major release versions are.
The perception that IE is lagging behind has nothing to do with a bad development cycle, it's more tied to ... bad development and a not-very-good product.
and the browser's updates are pushed through Windows Update. The actual browser doesn't have its own updating system, and this is a large part of the reason that over 40 percent of users are still using IE6 and IE7.
That's an interesting assertion. The only backup he gives are numbers for browser stats.
On the whole, this seems like one guy doing an editorial and talking off the cuff. That's how it struck me, anyways.
Although many developers may not really care much for nightlies or even point releases, it keeps them in the loop, and keeps them interested.
This confused me. Many developers don't care about them, but they do care about them... is that basically what the Ars article is saying?
Hm. Who did An Inconvenient Truth again? Who is pushing for "climate change" legislation? The hype and sensationalism is the fault of conservatives?
You sound like you're arguing from information given to you by Al Gore. I'm not sure he's a trustworth source.
Since I think the Polar Bear thing is particularly funny (I think a lot of teen girls think they are so cute, in spite of the fact that they are apparently some of the most aggressive and violent bears), this is certainly not Fox News. nor are these folks. But with proof like simply SEEING them so far off shore and presuming global warming is the reason, it's so obvious that any criticism must be wrong! I guess since the food that Polar Bears eat - like seals - are remaining completely stationary while the snow/ice presumably recedes. I've seen reports that polar bears can swim anywhere from 60 to 100s of miles, so apparently they aren't completely sure.
To me, the Polar Bear thing is a good example of someone seeing something and it getting blown completely out of proportion and people like Al Gore picking up on it and trying to use it for their own gain. Al Gore does not appear to be struggling financially.
Incidentally, from here:
Gore shows an animation of a polar bear (very reminiscent of the Coca Cola bears) swimming pitifully in the sea trying to haul itself up onto the last piece of ice floating in the Arctic Ocean. In 2002, the World Wildlife Fund issued a report warning that global warming was endangering polar bears. Arctic sea ice is thawing sooner and this means that the bears who hunt seals on the ice have fewer opportunities to feed themselves. This week saw an alarming report that hungry polar bears are turning cannibal. Yet, the WWF report itself found that most bear populations are either stable or increasing (see page 9 of the report). And remember, polar bears evidently survived when Arctic temperatures were warmer 6000 years ago. Of course, if predictions that the entire Arctic Ocean will be ice free in 100 year turn out to be right, then the polar bears will have a problem.
(emphasis mine)
That "ice free" bit was a link to "sciencedaily.com."
There is no media sensationalism surrounding climate change
Mmmm, yes there is though... because the media has so sensationalized the global warming bit (i.e., man-made) ... and I'm sure Al Gore's Nobel prize didn't help ... that I think the normal/popular reaction to anything that refers to temperatures changing ("climate change" or "global warming" or "global cooling" or "ice age" or "polar bears") immediately brings to mind human-induced global warming.
That man is Steve McIntyre.
But he's bad (read the summary, even!). He can't be a REAL scientist, because he disagrees with REAL science. Thus, he's obviously lying about his data and/or methodology... trust me.
...
... yes, sarcasm ... :)
The climate change denialists are a coalition of christian fundamentalist young earth creationists who see science as a threat to their religious beliefs, and tobacco companies who see science as a threat to their business plan. I think it is very likely that they would be motivated enough to create 61MB of hoax documents to further their cause
Comments like these bug me. Allow me to wax non-eloquent.
I could go on talking about it, but that's enough. As for tobacco companies, I wouldn't know.
And by the way... what do you think about Al Gore (and the rest)? He seems to be doing ok with his business plan. Or do you think that "corruption" is only on one side of this debate? That if you believe that humans are causing global warming you are obviously free from corruption ... and hypocrisy and greed and ... ?
People. Slashdot. Senators (Joe Wilson?). Talk show hosts (non-conservative).
Regarding Joe Wilson, which was high profile... here's my view: Yes, he was definitely wrong and "out of decorum" or whatever. But he got a huge amount of backlash - plenty more than people got for saying the same things to and about Bush (not sure if it was on the floor though). So Wilson was wrong, I agree. And I'm a Republican.
But to say that Wilson told Obama that he was lying because Joe Wilson is a racist is absolutely ridiculous. Unless they know something that I don't know.
And there was the entire campaign where Obama himself referred to racism and that the Republican campaign was going to use it... before it occurred (I don't think it actually did occur, there are plenty of black conservatives, too!).
Jimmy Carter said it was racism, by the way.
Janeane Garofalo apparently said that the "tea parties" were about racism... on MSNBC.
ABC News has another one that implies death threats and violent threats - which I do NOT condone, but happen to every President - are racial. Not sure what they were with all the other Presidents.
I don't think it was a great idea to give the prize to him but it the idea that we don't give nobel peace prizes to people to encourage/support/recognize potential work is just wrong.
Recognize potential work? That sounds strange to me. I guess I'm used to getting rewards based on something I actually HAVE done, not something that I said I MIGHT do ... if I feel like it and if it's popular at the time.
[...] Carl von Ossietsky for his journalism and peace activism against the Nazis.
Ah-ha. He did journalism and peace activism. He did a lot more than give a few speeches while campaigning for a political office.
And we all know how well he actually succeeded. Not at all. But that prize was completely reasonable.
So the potential work, while encouraged and supported, never happened? Strange thing to reward. But he did do some actual work, right? More than speeches or writing two books about himself?
There's a long history of giving the prizes to people who promise future work.
You mentioned one... and he was already involved in doing his work ... one counts as a "long history" I guess?
Moreover, Obama's win was a real accomplishment as the first black US President.
Then he should get a marketing and PR award. Being the first black US President is not a qualification for a peace prize (or shouldn't be) and it should not have been a qualification for being President. The fact that so many people complain about those racist bigots that dare to disagree with the first black President are only displaying one thing to me: they are so racist that they can't see past the color of his skin and think it's his most important trait. I happen to not care that he's black. Somehow that's racist now. All this time I thought I was supposed to treat blacks and whites equal. I guess not. Sorry, that was a rant that came out of your comment - there's nothing inherently wrong with being the first black President. But there's a lot wrong with voting for him just for the sake of that.
Also as a matter of international peace having a US President who doesn't think that bombing everything is a solution and doesn't go to war due to Biblical verses,
Yup, Bush did nothing but bomb many, many countries. Aside from fulfilling a lot of his campaign promises within his first year of office, that is. And aside from the fact that we were attacked before we went to bomb (unless you buy into conspiracy theories only when it's about a President you don't like). And aside from the fact that he actually viewed the terrorist wackos for what they really are - terrorist wackos. And besides, Obama can't seem to make up his mind about anything, not even about the war in Afghanistan that he said he supported and would finish. Unfortunately, I'm not sure he typically referred to winning, just "finishing." What I am hoping to not happen is another Vietnam.
So even if accomplishments were necessary Obama had them.
He talked a lot. What's he done so far? He still supported the war in Afghanistan, presumably, just not Iraq (and by the way, a lot of Congress supported the war in Iraq along with Bush). I had no idea that having a proper Biblical hermeneutic was a qualification for the Nobel Peace Prize, maybe I should try out for it? I still haven't seen these accomplishments of Obama, aside from, as usual - he's not Bush (or at least, he's didn't talk like Bush while campaigning). He was nominated very soon after he was elected, as I recall, so the nomination even was based on his campaign. Because we all know that people are the most truthful while campaigning.
Finally, Torvalds has real accomplishments.
As opposed to whom? Obama
Linus has though, fueled many thousands of flame-wars with his product.
Microsoft was right! Linux IS dangerous!
My main point, though, is that we are both trusting in other eyes, anyway. So... what if I trust in some employees at Microsoft? I'm not sure how many people actually look at SELinux aside from those that work on it...
I agree, open source is less likely to have intentional back doors... but I'm not sure all employees at Microsoft are bought out even if some of the higher management is, so I'm not sure it's reasonable to assume nobody at Microsoft is concerned about the same thing - people with access to the code, that is.
Pft. That's been a pocket game forever, why run it in a VM? ;)