| |||||||||||||
Naughton didn't do enough research to justify his conclusions.Naughton didn't do enough research to justify his conclusions.Posted Mar 21, 2011 16:06 UTC (Mon) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048)In reply to: Naughton didn't do enough research to justify his conclusions. by jubal Parent article: Has Bionic stepped over the GPL line?
I don't know who you are and who you work for, so you're not being nearly as transparent as I am by using my real name here. And you're off-topic. On my blog and in discussions like I express exclusively my own beliefs, and that's all I have to say about that. Now let's get back to the actual issues. Conspiracy theories are weak and pointless, especially when they're baseless like in this case.
(Log in to post comments)
Naughton didn't do enough research to justify his conclusions. Posted Mar 21, 2011 16:19 UTC (Mon) by jubal (subscriber, #67202) [Link]
Thank you for answering my question in such a clear and concise manner.
Naughton didn't do enough research to justify his conclusions. Posted Mar 21, 2011 18:41 UTC (Mon) by jonquark (subscriber, #45554) [Link]
I don't think whether you are paid to campaign on this issue (or against Android in general) is off-topic. Could you just confirm that you are receiving no remuneration in connection with consultation/lobbying on Android or against Google.
If you think it's relevant despite me expressing no other opinion on this issue so far: my full legal name is Jonathan Levell. My homepage is http://www.coralbark.net/ . I am employed by IBM as a software engineer (writing closed-source middleware unconnected to this issue) but I write this comment purely in a personal capacity. I am not authorised to speak on this issue (or pretty much any other ;) by my employer and certainly do not represent them here.
A short (clear) comment from you would be both on-topic and illuminating.
Naughton didn't do enough research to justify his conclusions. Posted Mar 21, 2011 21:28 UTC (Mon) by mdakin (subscriber, #42701) [Link]
But you did not answer his question.
Naughton didn't do enough research to justify his conclusions. Posted Mar 21, 2011 23:37 UTC (Mon) by clump (subscriber, #27801) [Link] I don't know who you are and who you work for, so you're not being nearly as transparent as I am by using my real name here.You've not disclosed any conflicts of interest. Jubal has been more transparent in this discussion. And you're off-topic.Because you link incessantly to your blog, you are in fact inserting yourself and your opinions in the discussion. Your conflicts of interest are therefore relevant. Now let's get back to the actual issues. Conspiracy theories are weak and pointless, especially when they're baseless like in this case.The actual issue is still your failure to disclose conflicts of interest, or the lack of conflicts of interest.
Naughton didn't do enough research to justify his conclusions. Posted Mar 22, 2011 3:55 UTC (Tue) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link] Florian - thanks for that comment. I'm bookmarking it, to remind myself (and perhaps others) where you stand on disclosures of conflicts of interest. (Hint: "off-topic" won't cut it with an editor of a scholarly journal, a respectable newspaper, or, for that matter, LWN.net. With scholarly journals, in particular, failure to disclose conflicts of interest is viewed as a serious ethical breach.)
|
|||||||||||||