Those who participate invest valuable time toward winning the prize, but if they fail to meet the deadline (or to produce the leading results) their efforts could go completely unrewarded.
Boohoo? Why should you be rewarded if you can't even meet the deadlines of the contest or producing subpar results compared to others?
That will most likely disqualify you based on the terms of the competition which usually contains clauses about them being able to use your work or some sort of copyright transfer.
The thing you seem to misunderstand is that Android isn't built or based on the GPLed version of Java. It is a reimplementation of a Java subset by Google and because it isn't fully J2SE compatible it doesn't get the public patent grant.
You seem to miss the point. You imagine that Intel doesn't point all of its eggs in one basket. The development of Itanium disproves that notion as they had no other real alternatives being developed at the same time.
The only Intel chips that are $1000+ are those that are either a few months old and/or are of the "Extreme" series. The core i7-860s and 930s are under 300 bucks and pretty much the entire core i5 line is at 200 or less.
And one can keep going about what C++ copied from other languages and what C copied from its predecessor languages. There isn't a computer language in existence for at least 30+ years that HASN'T copied something from a previous programming language.
Except for the white elephant in the room which are these patents that Oracle owns and have tested in court already when a 2003 court settlement with Microsoft created a 10 year cross licensing agreement that allows Microsoft to develop CLR.
You face no issues with patents as long as you make a fully compatible J2SE implementation. This is the reason that Google currently could face issues. They don't meet the requirements for the public patent grant.
Something thats been in development for even 5 years and doesn't show any concrete signs of success should at least have alternatives developed for it.
You haven't followed much of the history of Itanium's development have you?
Some programs require a certain version and will break if you have a newer version of.NET installed (vSphere Client, for one example, requires.NET Framework 2.0 but will not work with.NET 3.0).
And? There was no guarantee that all versions will be forward and backwards compatible. How is this any different than the fact that things will break going from VC++ 6 to VC++ 9? Or when there are changes to glibc that aren't backwards compatible?
Oh and most of the UI for XP Media Center Edition. From here:
The greatest challenge was taking the complexity inherent in the new technologies we created, and from all the partners we worked with, and integrating it in a seamless way. We worked with a very sophisticated and complex set of technologies--the user interface is done in DirectX, most of the Media Center code was written in state-of-the-art C#, and we worked with a ton of partners, all of whom have their own code--and integrated it all together in an attractive, simple and straightforward package
From a technical standpoint, Media Center user interface functionality is almost entirely written in C# managed code, on top of native Win32 and DirectX Windows XP components. These operating system components render video and draw fluid animations smoothly on the screen at 60 frames per second, with hardware acceleration and MPEG decoding provided by 3rd parties. Getting all these technology components to work together well was our biggest challenge.
There are other examples that you could find with a simple google search.
And, now this news that M$ might give up developing.NET any further adds to serve more confusion.
This isn't news that Microsoft isn't developing.NET any further. It is about Microsoft cutting back developers for dynamic languages being developed on top of.NET. Maybe you need to go back to 1st grade and learn some reading comprehension?
Slashdot Mirror
Since they are usually using these contests as R&D for proprietary products, yes it would. That is why they usually also ask for copyright transfers.
Those who participate invest valuable time toward winning the prize, but if they fail to meet the deadline (or to produce the leading results) their efforts could go completely unrewarded.
Boohoo? Why should you be rewarded if you can't even meet the deadlines of the contest or producing subpar results compared to others?
Nothing as your contract usually includes a clause about them owning copyright to the work you create while employed by them.
That will most likely disqualify you based on the terms of the competition which usually contains clauses about them being able to use your work or some sort of copyright transfer.
The thing you seem to misunderstand is that Android isn't built or based on the GPLed version of Java. It is a reimplementation of a Java subset by Google and because it isn't fully J2SE compatible it doesn't get the public patent grant.
Then your experiences with being a sysadmin must be severely limited or your a crappy sysadmin if you can't handle something so simple.
Because I made either the claim that it hurt Intel or it made them unprofitable? Oh wait...
You probably aren't. Sun already showed with their lawsuit against Microsoft that they wanted to be the sole group able to evolve Java.
They weren't saying that C++ didn't have operator overloading. He was talking about C# with respect to Java.
You seem to miss the point. You imagine that Intel doesn't point all of its eggs in one basket. The development of Itanium disproves that notion as they had no other real alternatives being developed at the same time.
The only Intel chips that are $1000+ are those that are either a few months old and/or are of the "Extreme" series. The core i7-860s and 930s are under 300 bucks and pretty much the entire core i5 line is at 200 or less.
Itanium comes to mind here because it offers a dizzying amount of registers, both FPU and CPU available to programs.
And it's been such a smashing success in comparison to x86, right?
And one can keep going about what C++ copied from other languages and what C copied from its predecessor languages. There isn't a computer language in existence for at least 30+ years that HASN'T copied something from a previous programming language.
Because Java was 100% original? The Java developers invented the notion of VM and didn't borrow any syntax from C and C++, right?
Except for the white elephant in the room which are these patents that Oracle owns and have tested in court already when a 2003 court settlement with Microsoft created a 10 year cross licensing agreement that allows Microsoft to develop CLR.
You face no issues with patents as long as you make a fully compatible J2SE implementation. This is the reason that Google currently could face issues. They don't meet the requirements for the public patent grant.
Something thats been in development for even 5 years and doesn't show any concrete signs of success should at least have alternatives developed for it.
You haven't followed much of the history of Itanium's development have you?
Some programs require a certain version and will break if you have a newer version of .NET installed (vSphere Client, for one example, requires .NET Framework 2.0 but will not work with .NET 3.0).
And? There was no guarantee that all versions will be forward and backwards compatible. How is this any different than the fact that things will break going from VC++ 6 to VC++ 9? Or when there are changes to glibc that aren't backwards compatible?
Already pointed out.
How is that any different from any other version of Visual Studio where that can happen with huge solutions?
It wouldn't be a drop-in replacement but there is no reason that a Java front-end couldn't be created and combined with the LLVM JIT compiler.
Especially when all the speculation is flat out wrong.
Oh and most of the UI for XP Media Center Edition. From here:
The greatest challenge was taking the complexity inherent in the new technologies we created, and from all the partners we worked with, and integrating it in a seamless way. We worked with a very sophisticated and complex set of technologies--the user interface is done in DirectX, most of the Media Center code was written in state-of-the-art C#, and we worked with a ton of partners, all of whom have their own code--and integrated it all together in an attractive, simple and straightforward package
From a technical standpoint, Media Center user interface functionality is almost entirely written in C# managed code, on top of native Win32 and DirectX Windows XP components. These operating system components render video and draw fluid animations smoothly on the screen at 60 frames per second, with hardware acceleration and MPEG decoding provided by 3rd parties. Getting all these technology components to work together well was our biggest challenge.
There are other examples that you could find with a simple google search.
SQLServer 2005 Management Studio for one.
And, now this news that M$ might give up developing .NET any further adds to serve more confusion.
This isn't news that Microsoft isn't developing .NET any further. It is about Microsoft cutting back developers for dynamic languages being developed on top of .NET. Maybe you need to go back to 1st grade and learn some reading comprehension?
Whatdo you mean?