I'm going to assume you're not trolling, and you truly believe your compassion based argument against double-blind trials. I'll start out by saying that I'm sorry that my offer of a differing viewpoint seems to have been taken by you as an attack on your values and beliefs. It is not meant to be an attack, and I'm sorry to have provoked an emotional reaction in you.
I don't know how or why you came to have a strong belief against double-blind trials, but I suggest that it does not hurt to consider an alternate viewpoint, even if you are not convinced by it. This is why I suggested you look at Goldacre's book.
Anyway, it's my view that double-blind trials make the world a better and more humane place. My reasoning is that they provide us with more reliable information about the effectiveness of treatment. They fight against data distortions from the placebo effect by "blinding" the patient. They also fight against confirmation bias, sample population manipulation, cherry-picking, and other distortions by blinding the researcher to which treatment each patient is receiving. It's a two-fold data protection system.
The result is that we have more effective medical treatments through better medical data. Although perhaps a few hundred people receive the placebo treatment, millions more will benefit because we would have a better idea of which treatments are more effective. This gives doctors a more accurate view of the world, which undoubtedly helps when treating patients. This is why I see double-blind trials as having a greater benefit to the world than any negative effect that placebo treatment may have.
The patients receiving placebo knew that they may or may not receive a placebo treatment. They also knew that the actual non-placebo medicine may or may not be effective, and could even be harmful. They freely decided to be a part of the study anyway, and sometimes get paid to do so. Besides, even if they do unknowingly receive placebo, their health tends to improve anyway because they believe the placebo treatment will work.
Mac OS X is arguably much more open than Windows. I base this argument on Mac OS X's open Mach kernel, BSD components, and GNU command line utilities included in the system. Although it also has lots of proprietary code, much like Windows, the difference is that Windows doesn't have as many open components as Mac OS X.
Also, both systems are equivalent with respect to the ability to install programs downloaded from the web, and I hope this never changes. If it does, I will throw a fit and deliver a pie to the face of the relevant executive officers. That restriction would be enough to make me go back to a Linux desktop. YMMV.
It goes without saying that most forms of Linux are way more open than either system.
Android and iOS both have permissions and protections in place to prevent apps from accessing personal data such as Contacts and Location. Although there have been incidents of breaches, the protections work most of the time. Android also sandboxes the apps, and although I'm not 100% sure I believe that iOS does so as well.
What is it about the Windows Phone implementation specifically that is so different and presumably better?
Okay, so TimSort.rangeCheck() was allegedly copied from java.util.Arrays.
Aside from the obviousness issues, this fact would make it slightly more sensible to use rangeCheck() for a copyright infringement case, except for the fact that java.util.Arrays was provided by Sun under the GPL v2. The GPL was written to encourage copying and modification.
The worst I could say about Google allegedly copying this code is that they re-licensed the GPL rangeCheck() method to Apache 2.0, which you can't really do; the combination of GPL code and non-GPL code would be a GPL end product. Regardless, I still don't see a billion dollar damage claim.
How can Oracle claim copyright damages on a file in Java's source code that is Copyrighted in 2009 by Google? Why hasn't Google tried to nullify the copyright claim on this file on the grounds they they wrote the code and that they themselves own the copyright? Why would Oracle make an issue of this file if the case for infringement is so weak?
None of this makes any sense to me whatsoever. I feel like I'm missing something; Oracle can't be this outrageous and Google's lawyers can't be this dumb. Can someone clarify?
What's amusing is that the 9 lines in question don't even implement the algorithm; they perform a quick sanity check before the real computation starts. Is this really the best they have? Couldn't they have found more creative lines of code to be infringing on a copyright?
Anyway I've been looking some stuff up. TimSort was originally written into Python by Tim Peters in 2002 (BSD-style license). If I'm not mistaken, that would mean that Sun wrote a trivial check as part their own re-implementation of someone else's work, and are claiming massive copyright damages on it. If Oracle wins that, that's one hell of a precedent.
Maybe it's not a right, but it's what AT&T agreed to sell these people.
Unlimited, def: 1. not limited; unrestricted; unconfined: unlimited trade. 2. boundless; infinite; vast: the unlimited skies. 3. without any qualification or exception; unconditional.
If it has a limit, tier, cap, or threshold, it's not unlimited. Unlimited is not newspeak for limited.
It's not a real fork. It's more like regular Android with a Amazon's home screen app and their other apps\services pre-installed. Same open OS, same API, just with some closed source apps facing the user.
If they went around changing the API and the OS behavior, breaking compatibility, then we'd be in fork territory. I don't see a good reason for them to do that; it's in their best interests to be compatible with existing and future Android apps. If they wanted to make such a fork they would have.
Still won't keep people from exiting the browser and bumping around the system.
Well, if it's an Android tablet you could just create an app that acts as a replacement home screen. Just implement the appropriate intent and display a browser control to the user.
If a developer decides to require Android 4.0 when all they really needed was 1.6, they're doing it wrong and it's their own fault that their market share suffers.
For apps where this would matter for performance, Android has an NDK for writing C\C++ that compiles to native code instead of Java (Dalvik) bytecode. It's usually used for games and heavy data processing but it's overkill for typical small apps that don't do much heavy lifting. You can mix and match Java and NDK code where needed, so a developer might code the processor intensive stuff in C\C++ while coding the rest in regular easy to use Java.
That all makes sense, but in this context platforms matter much more than the actual devices running them. That is because developers are writing apps for the platforms, not for the devices themselves. I'd agree your frame if apps had to be re-written for each and every Android device. But that's not the situation we're living with; developers are writing apps that run on Android devices that they might not have even heard of, and it typically "just works".
nerdy technical innovation every few months that's incompatible with the previous version.
This is a myth. Android releases have always been backwards compatible. That is, Apps written for Android 1.0 will work just fine in Android 1.1 and any later release in the future. If you're writing an app that requires, say, Android 2.1, such as a Live Wallpaper, then any Android running version 2.1 and higher will work fine. Devices that don't meet the requirement simply won't see the app in the Market.
If appropriate, developers can mark that support as optional, so your app will include that feature if the device supports it, and if it doesn't the feature will be disabled and the rest of the app will work regardless.
I wouldn't recommend creating your own license unless absolutely positively necessary. To do so would add legal ambiguity to how it can be used and combined with other projects.
I see that the Microsoft Public License is grouped in with the other permissive ones like Apache and BSD. Honest question though, is the MS-PL actually a popular choice for non-Microsoft projects? I've never really seen it much, and my intuition says that a decent set of open source devs would be allergic to a Microsoft license.
I'm not trying to snark, but please clarify: How is just having a ref code counter FOSS in your opinion? Do you find something wrong with a FOSS project raising money?
Slashdot Mirror
Counter intuitive? Yes, it most definitely is at times. Buggy? Not in my experience, it actually works quite reliably.
Maybe you just don't understand git. Or you're a troll.
I'm going to assume you're not trolling, and you truly believe your compassion based argument against double-blind trials. I'll start out by saying that I'm sorry that my offer of a differing viewpoint seems to have been taken by you as an attack on your values and beliefs. It is not meant to be an attack, and I'm sorry to have provoked an emotional reaction in you.
I don't know how or why you came to have a strong belief against double-blind trials, but I suggest that it does not hurt to consider an alternate viewpoint, even if you are not convinced by it. This is why I suggested you look at Goldacre's book.
Anyway, it's my view that double-blind trials make the world a better and more humane place. My reasoning is that they provide us with more reliable information about the effectiveness of treatment. They fight against data distortions from the placebo effect by "blinding" the patient. They also fight against confirmation bias, sample population manipulation, cherry-picking, and other distortions by blinding the researcher to which treatment each patient is receiving. It's a two-fold data protection system.
The result is that we have more effective medical treatments through better medical data. Although perhaps a few hundred people receive the placebo treatment, millions more will benefit because we would have a better idea of which treatments are more effective. This gives doctors a more accurate view of the world, which undoubtedly helps when treating patients. This is why I see double-blind trials as having a greater benefit to the world than any negative effect that placebo treatment may have.
The patients receiving placebo knew that they may or may not receive a placebo treatment. They also knew that the actual non-placebo medicine may or may not be effective, and could even be harmful. They freely decided to be a part of the study anyway, and sometimes get paid to do so. Besides, even if they do unknowingly receive placebo, their health tends to improve anyway because they believe the placebo treatment will work.
Okay, your turn. I look forward to your response.
If you wish to understand why we do double blind trials, I suggest you pick up a copy of Bad Science by Ben Goldacre
Mac OS X is arguably much more open than Windows. I base this argument on Mac OS X's open Mach kernel, BSD components, and GNU command line utilities included in the system. Although it also has lots of proprietary code, much like Windows, the difference is that Windows doesn't have as many open components as Mac OS X.
Also, both systems are equivalent with respect to the ability to install programs downloaded from the web, and I hope this never changes. If it does, I will throw a fit and deliver a pie to the face of the relevant executive officers. That restriction would be enough to make me go back to a Linux desktop. YMMV.
It goes without saying that most forms of Linux are way more open than either system.
Android and iOS both have permissions and protections in place to prevent apps from accessing personal data such as Contacts and Location. Although there have been incidents of breaches, the protections work most of the time. Android also sandboxes the apps, and although I'm not 100% sure I believe that iOS does so as well.
What is it about the Windows Phone implementation specifically that is so different and presumably better?
If you magically make the voting machines 100% secure, attackers will target the infrastructure that transmits, stores, and counts the votes.
I believe Chromium also excludes Google's software update functionality.
Slightly off-topic, but am I the only one that thinks the word "cyber" is a silly 90's throwback?
Okay, so TimSort.rangeCheck() was allegedly copied from java.util.Arrays.
Aside from the obviousness issues, this fact would make it slightly more sensible to use rangeCheck() for a copyright infringement case, except for the fact that java.util.Arrays was provided by Sun under the GPL v2. The GPL was written to encourage copying and modification.
The worst I could say about Google allegedly copying this code is that they re-licensed the GPL rangeCheck() method to Apache 2.0, which you can't really do; the combination of GPL code and non-GPL code would be a GPL end product. Regardless, I still don't see a billion dollar damage claim.
Wow, you're right, that's completely insane. Look at the revision history of TimSort.
How can Oracle claim copyright damages on a file in Java's source code that is Copyrighted in 2009 by Google?
Why hasn't Google tried to nullify the copyright claim on this file on the grounds they they wrote the code and that they themselves own the copyright?
Why would Oracle make an issue of this file if the case for infringement is so weak?
None of this makes any sense to me whatsoever. I feel like I'm missing something; Oracle can't be this outrageous and Google's lawyers can't be this dumb. Can someone clarify?
What's amusing is that the 9 lines in question don't even implement the algorithm; they perform a quick sanity check before the real computation starts. Is this really the best they have? Couldn't they have found more creative lines of code to be infringing on a copyright?
Anyway I've been looking some stuff up. TimSort was originally written into Python by Tim Peters in 2002 (BSD-style license). If I'm not mistaken, that would mean that Sun wrote a trivial check as part their own re-implementation of someone else's work, and are claiming massive copyright damages on it. If Oracle wins that, that's one hell of a precedent.
I presume the 9 lines in question refer to TimSort.rangeCheck().
Have you ever looked at it? If I had to implement that method, I probably would have done it the exact same way.
Maybe it's not a right, but it's what AT&T agreed to sell these people.
Unlimited, def:
1. not limited; unrestricted; unconfined: unlimited trade.
2. boundless; infinite; vast: the unlimited skies.
3. without any qualification or exception; unconditional.
If it has a limit, tier, cap, or threshold, it's not unlimited. Unlimited is not newspeak for limited.
It's not a real fork. It's more like regular Android with a Amazon's home screen app and their other apps\services pre-installed. Same open OS, same API, just with some closed source apps facing the user.
If they went around changing the API and the OS behavior, breaking compatibility, then we'd be in fork territory. I don't see a good reason for them to do that; it's in their best interests to be compatible with existing and future Android apps. If they wanted to make such a fork they would have.
Still won't keep people from exiting the browser and bumping around the system.
Well, if it's an Android tablet you could just create an app that acts as a replacement home screen. Just implement the appropriate intent and display a browser control to the user.
It's also a really thin book. Burn.
This is the link he meant to post.
If a developer decides to require Android 4.0 when all they really needed was 1.6, they're doing it wrong and it's their own fault that their market share suffers.
For apps where this would matter for performance, Android has an NDK for writing C\C++ that compiles to native code instead of Java (Dalvik) bytecode. It's usually used for games and heavy data processing but it's overkill for typical small apps that don't do much heavy lifting. You can mix and match Java and NDK code where needed, so a developer might code the processor intensive stuff in C\C++ while coding the rest in regular easy to use Java.
That all makes sense, but in this context platforms matter much more than the actual devices running them. That is because developers are writing apps for the platforms, not for the devices themselves. I'd agree your frame if apps had to be re-written for each and every Android device. But that's not the situation we're living with; developers are writing apps that run on Android devices that they might not have even heard of, and it typically "just works".
nerdy technical innovation every few months that's incompatible with the previous version.
This is a myth. Android releases have always been backwards compatible. That is, Apps written for Android 1.0 will work just fine in Android 1.1 and any later release in the future. If you're writing an app that requires, say, Android 2.1, such as a Live Wallpaper, then any Android running version 2.1 and higher will work fine. Devices that don't meet the requirement simply won't see the app in the Market.
If appropriate, developers can mark that support as optional, so your app will include that feature if the device supports it, and if it doesn't the feature will be disabled and the rest of the app will work regardless.
I wouldn't recommend creating your own license unless absolutely positively necessary. To do so would add legal ambiguity to how it can be used and combined with other projects.
I see that the Microsoft Public License is grouped in with the other permissive ones like Apache and BSD. Honest question though, is the MS-PL actually a popular choice for non-Microsoft projects? I've never really seen it much, and my intuition says that a decent set of open source devs would be allergic to a Microsoft license.
There was an incident with the GPL app GNU Go. Here is the FSF's take on the matter.
I'm not trying to snark, but please clarify: How is just having a ref code counter FOSS in your opinion? Do you find something wrong with a FOSS project raising money?