Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 July 27

= July 27 =

A question about religion
Hi there everyone. I just have a quick question. See, I believe that there is a God, and that he created the universe, but he didn't create everything else. I believe He created the universe and the universe in turn created the Sun and the stars and the planets and eventually us. Is there a "taxonomic" term used for this? Any answer would be appreciated. 64.229.153.236 (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Though not exactly the same concept, our article on Deism may help. A Deist seems to believe in a Creator, but not a Meddler... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * See more specifically Theistic evolution, which isn't just refering to biological evolution specifically, but combines the notions of a creator God with the idea that the universe is a changing, evolving place. -- Jayron  32  02:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Doesn't the universe contain the sun, the stars, the planets? I don't understand the question. Indeed the sun, the stars, the planets had a point of inception. At Universe I find: "The universe is commonly defined as the totality of everything that exists…" Bus stop (talk) 02:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe he created a huge pile of raw material and enough space for it to fit into, gave it a push, and left it all to its own devices. But that raises the question: what was there before the space was created (which to me is an even more interesting question than what there was before the raw material was created).   --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  02:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

@Bus stop: Sorry, I'll make myself clearer: I was just wondering if there's any specific religion or theory that states that God created the universe, but didn't actually create the stars and the planets personally, as if the universe made its own course using chemical reactions, etc. 64.229.153.236 (talk) 03:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ugh, sorry, by "created the universe" I mean he "started" the big bang. Sorry for any confusion. 64.229.153.236 (talk) 03:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * 64.229.153.236—when I say I don't understand your question I mean that I cannot accept what I see as a discontinuity of events that I think you are positing. God, having initiated the universe in any way, becomes the initiator of all sub-events, by my reasoning. To my reasoning, once you say that God initiated reality, you are saying that God micromanages reality. I think you may be right that there exist theories of religion that further break down reality into that which is or was managed by God and that which is outside of God's aegis. To my way of thinking, one either accepts a theory of God in which God is and was involved in everything, or one rejects the notion of "God" altogether. Bus stop (talk) 10:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But in a nondeterministic universe, setting the initial conditions certainly does not constitute micromanagement, and even in a deterministic universe, a nonomniscient creator isn't intentionally controlling the fine details of eventual outcomes. -- 203.82.93.98 (talk) 14:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC) (An atheist who sees where the OP is coming from.)
 * Maybe something at Unmoved mover or one of the many pages linked from there would be useful. Pfly (talk) 03:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes - there is the belief (allied with Deism, if not exactly the same thing, as I understand it) that a competant God would be quite capable of setting the necessary parameters, pressing 'Start', and then sitting back to se what happened...


 * "In the beginning was the Bang. And it Was Big..."


 * The great thing about this belief system is that not only is it unfalsifiable (most religions are), but that it tells you nothing whatsoever about God, other than that He/She/It isn't omniscient (otherwise why bother?), but is curious to learn about things, through scientific experiment. Now there's irony for you, if God turns out to be not only a scientist, but one who doesn't believe in miracles.... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Try this... don't think about how God created the Universe but God's motive for doing so. You can think of space-time and mass-energy as His tools. --DeeperQA (talk) 03:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Motive, curiosity. These already suggest cause-and-effect. Isn't God supposed to be above such things? Pfly (talk) 04:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This is one of the few god concepts that could feasibly exist, but compared to the demonstrably false major world religions, it offers very little emotional comfort. Not only that, but by the very definition of the god you propose, he/she/it is beyond our detection and thus we can neither confirm nor deny its existence. Its the same with all gods, except most can be disregarded due to internal logical inconsistencies. Just don't fall into the trap of thinking that because a god could have created the universe, that that means Yahweh or Allah or aliens or His Majesty the Spaghetti Monster definitely exists. Pascal yuiop (talk) 05:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems hard to be curious if you are omniscient. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The theologian Baden Powell, an Anglican priest, saw god as essentially a lawgiver, who set in motion the physical laws of the universe and then confined himself to moral issues, not interfering in the physical world. DuncanHill (talk) 09:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Daoism may be of interest. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

That sounds very like the view of creation put forward by the author of the Kuzari. --Dweller (talk) 10:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

A very relatable concept; I too believed this. You may be interested in Naturalistic pantheism. Schyler ( one language ) 19:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You might also look at Baruch Spinoza's beliefs. His God is a bit more present than a pure Deist's, but still non-interventionary. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Pfly got there before me. Aristotle philosophized the notion of the “unmoved mover,” which is that which gave the universe its first motion. Call it God, if you wish; he did not. The idea is that there was just one nudge that started the process of what we now call the Big Bang and evolution, and after that the “mover” retired. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Although surrounded by advertizing give this idea a try. --DeeperQA (talk) 22:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Economic simulation digital computer model
There use to be an economic simulation model it seems at Leeds University that was online back in the '80s that allowed the user to select various parameters such as percent tax and percent interest in order to model the British economy. Is that simulator still online and if not is there another one somewhere else? --DeeperQA (talk) 03:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know about this particular simulation, but we have an article on an earlier attempt to model the British economy here: MONIAC Computer, it worked through hydraulics. Apparently it always tended to leak, and nobody could get it to function properly, so evidently it was entirely accurate... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I meant specifically. --DeeperQA (talk) 03:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

USS Constitution
Why is such an obsolete ship as the USS Constitution still in service? Shouldn't it have been broken up for scrap over a century ago? Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 15:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The Answer is in the third paragraph of the article: "Constitution's mission today is to promote understanding of the Navy’s role in war and peace through educational outreach, historic demonstration, and active participation in public events." Most large navies keep one or two historical ships, often sail-powered, for ceremonial and public affairs purposes. The Constitution is now basically a floating museum that promotes the US Navy. There's no thought of ever using it again for military purposes. --Xuxl (talk) 15:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * To simplify Xuxl's response, see the article marketing and come back if you have any questions. -- Jayron  32  16:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * To further underline Xuxl's point, yesterday I happened to cross Portsmouth Harbour (Why? To get to the other side, of course!) by the Gosport Ferry, and as always could see the masts and rigging of HMS Victory and passed close by HMS Warrior. Note also our article Museum ship. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.97 (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A number of Coast Guards and Navy keep sailing ships to train their officers on. Probably more as a team building type of excercise. Rmhermen (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not just for the sake of marketing and such either. There's a morale component as well.  I've toured the Constitution and took a moment to chat with the crew aboard her.  Some of them have a genuine interest in history and seeing her sail.  Dismas |(talk) 22:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you break up a wooden ship for scrap? Wouldn't it be breaking it up for firewood? 88.8.79.148 (talk) 00:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be hard work for most of us, but allegedly the "harpies of the shore," whoever they are, would find it easy to tear down the tattered ensign, and then pluck apart the "eagle of the sea," as some term the wooden ship in question. Plucking apart sounds like harder work than breaking up, even though breaking up is hard to do. Actually, the Secretary of the Navy in 1830 proposed breaking up the future tourist attraction and national symbol. Similarly, in the second half of the 19th century there was consideration of tearing down the obsolete White House, or converting it to government offices, while building a more modern Presidential palace. If something makes it past the point where it is merely old fashioned and inefficient, and becomes a landmark, or national treasure, then the cost of maintaining it ceases to have much meaning. Edison (talk) 04:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you break up a wooden ship for scrap? Yes: "The availability of wooden vessels for breaking was therefore at its height during the second half of the nineteenth century and it would have been apparent to the astute businessman that the rapid developments taking place would create an abundant supply of seasoned timber for recycling purposes."
 * Is there an explanation somewhere of how a ship was actually "broken up?" Did it involve crushing it with machinery, or pulling apart planks and timbers which could be re-used for marine or shore structures, either manually or aided by steam power, or sawing it up into small pieces of firewood. or what? I heard, for instance, that John Wesley bought used ships masts from the British Navy to use as structural columns in a church in London, to hold up a balcony. I expect that there would be many usable timbers and planks, not to mention decorative carved door moldings, and windows from the captains cabin in the stern, as well as railings. Edison (talk) 19:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Why do women like men?
Not a question that I am joking about. To me, females are always neat, clean, composed of thought, smooth skinned, anatomically as well as beautiful facially compared to men.

I just don't understand why women would like men. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.88.243.39 (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The world is a highly diverse place, and you will find a full continuum of every possible personality type among both genders. You cannot reliably make sweeping, inaccurate generalizations and then ask "why".  I could say "Why do pigs fly?"  If they don't, in fact, fly, there is no point in answering it.  Likewise, your question presupposes something which is so totally wrong and inaccurate, the idea that all women can be pigeonholed into a specific personality, and likewise with men, that I see absolutely no need to attempt to answer it directly.  -- Jayron  32  16:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't like all men, only nice men. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nor do we all like men... --TammyMoet (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I was defining "like" broadly. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In short most women are attracted to a different set of features. In a species that engages in sexual reproduction, it is biologically necessary (with a few exceptions for unusual matting habits) for both genders of a species to be drawn to each other (at least when reproduction is possible). In humans it follows that most males are attracted to characteristics that they perceive as feminine and for most females to be attracted to perceived masculine characteristics.  The extent to which these features are culturally or biologically determined is difficult to understand.  There are a variety of articles you may want to take a look at to help understand attraction: Physical Attractiveness, Pair bonding and for fun, the Sexy son hypothesis.  -- Daniel  17:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It may be counterintuitive but for some baffling reason some women are attracted to some men. It could be a fluke of nature. I have a hunch women like the fact that men find them attractive, but that's just a tenuously-grounded hypothesis. Bus stop (talk) 19:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But looking at guys, I find it hard to believe that anyone could find males attractive. We're so funny-looking compared to women. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Your perspective doesn't matter, if you are male. Genders are meant to like each other, otherwise, through evolution something would get pretty screwed. Both gender evolved to like each other. 88.8.79.148 (talk) 23:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But looking at cute guys, I find them far more attractive than women. (And I am male). I find it hard to believe that anyone would not find them attractive, Mwalcoff. They are so muscular/sexy/handsome even compared to the best looking women! ---Lgriot (talk) 08:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Evolution is a short, but unsatisfying answer. But there you have it: women liking men seems to be a pattern that has been reinforced, because it leads to viable offspring, which maintain the species, etc. The internal mental quality of this 'like' is ineffable to outsiders. From my perspective, there is nothing human-specific about this question. How is it different than 'Why do peahens like peacocks?' See sexual selection and sexual dimorphism for starters. Also, keep in mind that, though we sometimes speak of 'traits of men' and 'traits of women', these are often heavily influence by culture; they are not supported by biological science ( except the small set of features that are biological, such as the claim 'males have XY chromosomes' (and even that statement is problematic to some...) ). SemanticMantis (talk) 15:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

There was speculation a few years back that a gene which causes women to be attracted to more masculine men was a cause of homosexual attraction in men who inherit it. μηδείς (talk) 13:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But what about gay men who are attracted to more feminine men? Pais (talk) 16:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I thought that the traditional answer is that men give women money, pay to take them out on dates, provide them with a home, support them financially, pay to raise their kids, etc. Men earn, women spend. If any woman would like to go out to work to support me while I stay at home watching daytime tv and painting my nails, please let me know. 92.29.124.70 (talk) 12:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

How to learn more about classical music
I'm a lawyer currently dating a musician (pianist/composer/aspiring film scorer) and would like to learn more about classical music. I'm not really an idiot about it - I played classical piano for ten years growing up (more modern-era than classical-era, but "classical" as in not jazz etc) - but I have never really listened to symphonic music much and have big gaps in my music knowledge. I'd like to learn more but I'm not sure of the best way to go about it. Is there an engaging book on the history of music you would recommend? This one at Amazon looks promising. Even with that though I think it would be really limited in terms of listening. I guess I could go to youtube and pull up representative clips as I read, but that seems like a big hassle. Is there a series of documentaries like Burns' jazz documentary that would give me a good introduction? Interactive resources? Any other ideas? Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yale University offers the course MUSI 112 Listening to Music by Craig M. Wright as a free course (audio, video, and transcript) here. If you follow this along with the companion book, you should be able to learn a lot. I also enjoyed Leonard Bernstein's Young People's Concerts, some of which are out on DVD. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That online course looks really promising, thanks! Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In my senior year in high school (before I went to university where I dropped my Music Composition Major) I read Music, The Brain, And Ecstasy. Even without the basis on music, it was one of the best books I've ever read. Very well written and suited for any person, regardless of his or her musical training. I would also suggest looking at the articles contained in Template:History of European art music. You could maybe even memorize the order and the placement of "big names," i.e. Bach: Baroque; Mozart: Classical; Beethoven: Romantic, ad infinitum. Schyler  ( one language ) 19:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There have been several similar queries previously here. I don't know whether reading the threads would be of any help. Deor (talk) 11:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You could just find a stream/station that you like, and whenever a particularly good piece comes on, you could look up the composer's wiki article, or the piece in particular -- it may have one if it's really popular. Vranak (talk) 02:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Duas for Ramadhan
Someone told me that during the holy month of Ramadhan, there are three duas for each week like the second week of Ramadhan is seeking forgiveness? Sorry if my question is not understandable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.16.195 (talk) 20:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Statistics and discrimination
Suppose that a company chooses mainly people from college X, and that college X has a tendency to attract a certain kind of people (depending on their race, economical background or whatever). At the end, this company would have hired proportionally many graduates of certain social groups, even if not discriminating directly. Could this company be accused of discrimination due to this statistical effect? Quest09 (talk) 21:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * They are discriminating directly. How do you know they aren't choosing college X because it only attracts the sort of people it wants to hire?  Your description of events sounds like Willful blindness, that is to deliberately arrange events so as to establish Plausible deniability in the event someone calls you to the floor for the results of your actions "See, we're not discriminating against women, we just hire from colleges that are 90% male!"  People and companies have a responsibility to ensure that the outcomes of their actions are just and fair; anyone can come up with excuses after the fact as to why their actions didn't produce fair results.  Good people have the foresight and responsibility to ensure that fair results are produced always.  -- Jayron  32  21:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Under British law, that would constitute "indirect discrimination", which is illegal. --Tango (talk) 21:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There's certainly nothing illegal in the U.S. about favoring graduates of a certain college in hiring. It's not uncommon for people to get jobs because they went to the alma mater of the guy doing the hiring, like the guy who competed with Homer Simpson for the nuclear plant job in a flashback episode. However, if your office is in downtown Detroit and your staff includes 100 white people and no blacks, it won't look good to the EEOC if someone does accuse you of discrimination. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This question reminds me of a big ruckus that was raised a few years back when a newspaper pointed out that the local baseball team was the whitest in the league. It turns out the relative lack of Hispanic players was because the team preferred to sign college players over teenagers, and few Dominican prospects go to U.S. colleges. The ruckus was mainly directed at the newspaper for even bringing it up. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say that it's always discrimination. If a company hires mainly mechanical engineers, it will be hiring mainly men, and it doesn't matter from where it takes the candidates. On a further note, I don't know if a company has to keep a balance among people from certain social groups. That would be mostly a form of positive discrimination. Anyway, AFAIK, unless the company admits the discrimination explicitly (at least in some internal report) in most cases the law maker will let them go away with it. 88.8.79.148 (talk) 23:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There are no government-mandated minority quotas in the private sector, generally, but having an unusual lack of women or blacks or whatever could be used as evidence -- along with other stuff -- by a plaintiff or complainant trying to make a case that your company discriminated against that person. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Except it doesn't always work like that in the real world. For example, chemists and chemical engineers are still overwhelmingly male in the UK, especially as you go higher up the ladder. However, Loreal got in trouble with gender discrimination laws in the EU because their research and development team, made up mostly of chemists and chemical engineers, was overwhelmingly female. In fact, the whole company was overwhelmingly female, from scientists to engineers to testers to managers, etc. They had to put a positive effort in to recruit men, to avoid being fined. So, despite the gender balance of the overall pool of chemists and chemical engineers, the company was attracting and recruiting almost entirely women. And then had to work to recruit men.
 * Anyone who's worked in industry knows that there are companies that certain groups can feel comfortable applying to and working for, and others where you are just never going to feel comfortable and will have to fight for every inch. Some people are happy being trailblazers: most people want to work somewhere that they can feel welcome and safe. And people pursue education based on the sort of jobs they think people like them can get and enjoy. Some companies reach out to teenagers by showing them possible careers in science and engineering.
 * And, on a smaller scale, in my year, at my university, in my engineering discipline, there was a good proportion of women. This was not the case at other universities, or in the years above us, or in the other engineering disciplines. Our department had done something in its promotions, and in its open days, to make us feel this was a good choice for us, so we picked that university. There were lots of little factors, but I think it helped that they included female students in the teams of students that showed us around, even though they were a low percent of the total student body, and we saw female teaching and research staff, even though (again) they were a low percent of the total. They were visible, so we could see they were there and mattered. There were lots of other little things that they did that made it feel a safe and exciting option, all of which really showed that they were getting something deeper right. So, we voted with our feet and clustered there.
 * So, actually, if your company is only or overwhelmingly diaproportionately recruiting men, or white people, or the able bodied, you probably are doing something wrong without knowing it. As a result, you're only recruiting the people who want to work somewhere that gives off such a hostile message to other groups. Some places have legislation against that: others just let such groups wither away. 86.164.73.187 (talk) 23:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

time
I am not much more then old school education, thus not real smart, Who decided to start the anno dominon calendar? Also before that time, what year was it really. I,m sure the people ten years before did not know about B.C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.74.206.14 (talk) 21:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Our article on Anno domini says it was all started in 525 by Dionysius Exiguus. Hope this helps. --  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  21:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And before that, and for quite a long time after that, since the Anno Domini system didn't catch on for a few hundred years, there were other ways of measuring time. In the Roman Empire they often used Ab urbe condita, from the foundation of the city of Rome (assumed to be 753 BC), or dated the year by the names of that year's consuls. An early Christian system was anno mundi, from the creation of the world (I think that was 5509 BC, at least according to the measurement used by the Byzantine Empire). People also often used a more recent date like the beginning of the rule of a pope or a king (in which case the date would be given as "in the fifth year of X's papacy", for example). Adam Bishop (talk) 06:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We English folks like to give the credit to the Venerable Bede; "Although Bede did not invent this (AD) method, his adoption of it, and his promulgation of it in De Temporum Ratione, his work on chronology, is the main reason why it is now so widely used". Alansplodge (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * His adoption of it and his promulgation of it? That's two reasons. Shouldn't that 'is' be an 'are'? --  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  22:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Ethics with Mac and Virtualbox computing
To do some high school bioinformatics research project, we plan to make an iPhone app relative to our research. We need a Mac to create apps for the iPhone; if we just use Flash, we are limited in what we can program. However, being the computer specialist he is, he says he can obtain the Mac OS online, which Apple purposely released. We would put it into the VirtualBox, which would run the program on our computer in one window, and we could practically use a Mac on a Windows 7 computer. Would the scientific community frown on this? What are your thoughts on the ethics? Thanks for your input! --DSbanker (talk) 22:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's almost certainly illegal, and the scientific community almost certainly wouldn't give a hoot. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If he's acquiring Mac OS online, he's almost certainly pirating it. (Unless he's "obtaining" it by ordering a copy from Amazon.com, or something).
 * The legality of using MacOS on a computer that is not Mac-branded is disputed. It is against Apple's terms of service, but there's a good deal of debate as to how much legal weight that carries. It probably depends on which nation you live in, and I don't think it's ever been tested in court, anyway. (See : Hackintosh )
 * But I agree with Stephan that the scientific community won't care too much. Especially if you're using a paid copy of the OS and not one you just nabbed from The Pirate Bay or something. APL (talk) 22:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, Apple disclosed it publicly here. --DSbanker (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed your link. Hope you don't mind.  Dismas |(talk) 22:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks!--DSbanker (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No they didn't. They used Open source componants when making the operating system. And they're forced to release their version of the source for those packages. (And they've done so, at the link you provided.)
 * But there's not enough there to make a working MacOS computer.  You need the entire package for that. You need to buy that.
 * This seems to be a common misconception. I'm not sure why. APL (talk) 23:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You might also have a problem with Flash on an iPhone. See iPhone (ref).  Astronaut (talk) 17:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe you're mistaken for most of 'And they're forced to release their version of the source for those packages.' Some of it is GPL which they are indeed forced to release. Some of it may be other licences which they are forced to release. However most of it is Apple Public Source License only, which was clearly not something many developers were using and while some licences may require release but allow it to be released as APSL only I don't think there are any common ones. Note that while they did use BSD code, they are/were not required to release the source code since it is not a copyleft licence. And although their stated reason for APSL is to give back to the community, I doubt BSD (or other permissive licence) advocates found what they released under APSL particularly useful since it's partially copyleft and BSD advocates generally dislike copyleft more then Microsoft does (who afterall now have such a licence themselves), although perhaps they find it marginally better then what Microsoft have done, who have also used some BSD code but not generally released much source code back under any open licence. That may be partially why OpenDarwin was so unsuccessful it died a lonely death and PureDarwin is I don't think having much more success. I believe Apple did release some code under a BSD licence at one stage. Nil Einne (talk) 02:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)