The very concept of "Greenhouse Gas" is a hypothetical, not a principle. It has a number of flaws in the basic experimental basis on which the hypothesis rests. The observations in these experiments were conducted on gasses under pressure. Surely, you remember the simple P = nRT/V Pressure Volume Temperature stuff from Physics 101?
The Original Greenhouse gas experiments were conducted by putting suspected heavier than air gases in sealed bottles and exposing those bottles to the sun. The original experiments seem to lack important scientific controls.
While I've never seen anything like celebrating an opponent's death, in my social science experience, I've witnessed rampant conclusion-driven methodology.
"Do you think that because we included XYZ in our sampling that it's clouding the results?"
"Don't tell me what the data say; I know what's really happening and the data are wrong!"
The way science is funded is not amenable to honest science. If the track you're leading dries up, switching tracks isn't really an option because all the other tracks have people leading them already.
"(even though it took a while)"
Um. The comment on the bug report which kicked all this off - "Seems to work: but why am I not getting a root password prompt?" - is dated 2009-11-18 07:47:19 EDT. The email announcing that the policy will be tightened is dated Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:29:19 (again ET). That's a response time of 37 hours, 42 minutes, by my count. I think you'd find that's...really quite fast.
They fucking own us. Literally and figuratively.
If you owe the bank $100,000 they own you, but if you owe the bank $1,000,000,000,000 you own them.
China's fate is just as wrapped up in the value of that debt as our own is.
I think you can download the core of their operating system. Google has said released under opensource. It has said nothing about using the GPL. They could use Apache or some derivative there of and still be "opensource", but it won't be ChromeOS unless on their approved hardware.
We have a client that was using a web based POS and moving back to one that runs on their local lan. Why? If they lost their internet for any reason, they're business is dead in the water. They can't process transactions. Now they are still using a web-based ERP solution, but if they loose internet they can still process transactions. They're store's info just doesn't sync with the ERP until the internet comes back up.
Dropbox isn't open and it stores the files online. I would suggest it as well, but he can't control the encryption. Not sure about "Jungle Disk", whatever that is.
OK, "good enough". Look at American and Soviet military equipment in the Second World War compared to German. German hardware was better, more effective, better designed, higher tolerances.
American gear was "good enough" and Soviet was half-assed and brute force at best. Soviet gear was able to smash German gear, American gear was built quicker and in larger numbers than German gear and could be adapted to other roles, the Aircobra and Kingcobra fighters are prime examples of that.
Mac OS, WIndows, iPhone are "good enough" for alot of users, heck I'd wager if Apple had let T-Mobile/Verizon/Sprint in on the iPhone at the same time as AT&T there wouldn't be a fight, they'd own the smartphone market and we'd be here arguing about monopoly, because the iPhone and the apps out there are "good enough".
Yes, I read that DF link when it was first posted. The only problem is that Gruber totally misunderstand the point LeMarsh was making, because all of his comments were centered around "The first rejection" and not later cases. That alone invalidates pretty much every point Gruber made (in relation to the list of four items, though I will debunk the general case in a moment).
At the time of the initial submission, Apple had no way of knowing the icons were not contained by the app. That was only known by Apple four weeks later - AFTER Rogue tried to game Apple by "Resubmitting and hoping for a different reviewer". That whole portion of the delay was on RA for trying to game the system instead of address the problem. So the initial rejection was perfectly justified, it was only later ones (after the stupid resubmission attempt with an unmodified application) that were more in question, and if you read the full RA account you'll see that actually the Apple reviewers gave this a ton of thought and one reviewer was even pushing to have this use allowed.
And my point IS true, because like I said I have known since the SDK launch you could not use Apple trademarked images. We've all known that for a long time because apps that use them generally get rejected, and there are other portions of the agreement that lay this out more clearly than the portion you use - which basically says you can use what trademarks they allow, but the fact is they do not allow that so the portion you quote remains true even while you cannot use these images.
the Airfoil Speakers Touch iPhone app does not contain any of these images. It contains no pictures of Apple computers. It contains no icons of Apple applications. It displays these images after they are sent across the network by Airfoil for Mac.
Bingo, you posted the reason for the rejection. They sent the images FROM THE MAC to the iPhone. No the application did not technically ship with the images, but the rejection centers around USE not STORAGE. The portion of the agreement you post says you may allow trademarked images with permission, but where does it say in the API docs for the OS X call to get those images that you may distribute them for other uses? That was the first thing I looked at when this whole issue arose, and it does not say anything about that. In short, that API is NOT giving you permission to use the images on other systems.
Would it be OK to download images from Apple.com and use those, or do you imagine that would be rejected? I know what I would assume as a developer.
As I said in another message, I can understand why they thought it might be OK in this instance because the existence of that API implies you can use the images in your own application, and possibly by extension other applications on other devices. But the API that generated those images has no allowance in the documentation for transferring them off of the system the application is running in, why is it so surprising to think that redistribution is not allowed? I would have probably tried what they did myself, argued my case with Apple but then when the note came down I couldn't use them - I would have understood, shrugged my shoulders and moved on.
I also have to wonder if there was not a licensing path RA could have followed to obtain official permission to use these images. Surely that is an option for some applications if they really want to use Apple images, and I would have asked who to contact to work out licensing. I never saw that they tried that.
If you can't understand it, it is intuitively obvious.