I think it is mainly supposed to compete with Macbook Air, which is only configurable to 8GB. If you need more you should consider something more like a mobile workstation like a MBP or the Dell M3800.
I guess you could quantify it with % of code. I've never actually snooped around inside of there, and I'm basing what I was saying off of things I've read here on HN. Maybe I'm wrong, but I've gotten the impression that a larger percentage of the Safari code base is not open source than Chrome.
Saying that any percent >0 causes the software to not be considered open source is also drawing a line. Either way in my opinion it's subjective where you choose to draw it.
I agree that Safari should be included. I was simply disagreeing with the parent, because I got the impression that he or she was saying they are equal. Also, if someone decided they wanted to draw the line somewhere where it would exclude Safari, I would understand where they're coming from, and agree, as Chrome is more open sourcy.
Edit:
> "If you want to draw lines and make it sound scientific then you better show us some numbers. "
I'm not sure where you're getting this. I wasn't trying to draw lines or making anything sound scientific. All I said was that more of Chrome is open source, that's it. Like I said, I feel it's subjective as to where you draw the line, which is why I was disagreeing with parent. I felt that he or she was making an objective claim with how it should be. In my opinion if you insisted on being objective about it, you would probably have to measure the % code or whatever. I don't believe that the objective view on it is treating any software with greater than 0% proprietary software the same.
I do? I think the parts of the browser that aren't the rendering engine are important too. That being said, I honestly don't really care about the original argument. I agree that Safari should be included as open source.
My point was just that I think Chrome is measurably more open source. I know that's vague and you can quantify by number of lines, whatever. Since Chrome is "more" open source, wouldn't someone be able to fairly draw a line that includes Chrome but not Safari?
In my mind where one draws that line is completely subjective. I think where you draw the line is equally subjective.
The part where you were treating Chrome and Safari as equal in terms of open-souce-ness is what I disagree with.
From the article:
"In addition, numerous BART police officers and other BART personnel were present during the planned protest, and train intercoms and white courtesy telephones remained available for customers seeking assistance or reporting suspicious activity."
So, to answer your question, BART police would have detained him, or someone would have used one of those phones to call for help.
Regarding your first question, what are you implying was their motive for doing this, if not for safety?
This has nothing to do with cell-jammers. BART normally offers cell phone service underground as signal usually can't travel there. They just flipped the switch.
I'm obviously in the minority here, but I don't feel their response was so bad. There are plenty of "well-reasoned critiques that outline several important, thoughtful points" of many companies on the internet. I think the fact that they responded at all is good. Remember Apple's response to the iPhone 4 issues? We (finally) got Jobs pointing the finger at other companies and trying to shift the attention.
Here RIM is admitting they're in some shit, and yes, they are only offering the typical response, but what else do you expect? That's not a rhetorical question. I'm genuinely curious how they could have responded that would make critics happy.
My thought is that the only thing they can do right now is promise action, which they did. Whether they follow through or not, I have no idea.
In response to your quoted text:
I have no idea if the person really was an employee. I think people should take a neutral look at this instead of assuming one way or the other. On one hand, it could be an employee who has already talked to his colleagues about these issues and has been ignored. On the other hand, it's possible that it is just a bad media stunt by someone trying to bring negative attention to RIM or even trying to make some money with shorting them. If it's the former, I agree with you and would find this backpedalling immature. In the latter case I would agree with RIM and feel their response is appropriate.