Ah! Semantic fetishists are always fun. I can play too!
Basically, you're making the point that anything that can be described in terms of characteristics, can be typified. Not a total shocker when I put it in these terms, is it?
Following that perfectly valid train of thought, I'm pretty much sure that a certain ethnic group (lets call this group "the jews"), can be associated with a "type of DNA". For instance, nobody would say that black people don't share some genetic trait. An ethnic group, such as the Jews, is likely to interbreed. Sharing the religion is a very strong factor when selecting mates in some circles; in particular among orthodox Jews, for instance. Interbreeding is famously know for reinforcing genetic traits (and for its broad use in low-budget porn, but I digress...). Thus, even when I never even remotely said so, using your own definition of "types of DNA", we could very much say that Jews can be associated with certain "types of DNA".
You see what I did there, didn't you?
But perhaps you didn't mean that, right? Perhaps you meant that religious beliefs do not come from endogenous characteristics. I agree, and never said otherwise. Then again, you weren't trying to correct me, or make an argument; you were trying to be an smart-ass, insulting me and making a fuss after I made a joke. Well, congratulations, Mister Troll: I took your bait. Now you can go on jerking off to your image in the mirror. Feel free to call me stupid all your little ego desires.
It's something that we're totaly screwing up right now, by trying to treat all possible diseases and letting all crap DNA survive, weakening our chanses of survival
Copyrighting an API would not kill interoperability, because when you use an API, you don't copy it; you just use it. In particular, using a Java API based on interfaces, requires having the classfiles, not the source files. Thus, using a Java API does not require "copying the API", in the sense of using for free somebody else's work. Now, if you build you own system, which has an API, and instead of coding your own interfaces, copy the source files someone else wrote... that is "copying the API", and you'd be effectively commiting what copyright tries to protect.
Another example: web services. The API is defined by a WSDL. If you download the WSDL of an Amazon web service, for instance, and then use it in your own on-line-bookstore system or whatever, then you're copying it, and quite possibly infringing a copyright. If you implement a caller of the web service, you are using the interface for interoperability purposes, without infringing any copyright.
I was not addressing the Oracle/Google case, but the rather general case proposed by the GP. I think it's pretty clear that you can design, publish and copyright APIs, them being software artifacts. They posses no inherent condition that make this impossible, IMO... besides the "software is an algorithm and algorithms are math" argument, of course.
On the other hand, could we make the case that an API is not software?
I believe you're not thinking this properly. An API is a piece of software, just as any other. Given the current state of affairs, why shoulnd't it be subject of copyright? Perhaps you're thinking "But an API is only an Java interface, no implementation!" I say: so? Even if it an API was so simple (it's not; it includes input/ouput parameters, exceptions, a usage definition, documentation, and so on), why would the simplicity of something prevent it from being subject of copyright? Hint: comparisons with one-click-purchase do not apply.
Furthermore, an API is not the equivalent of a phone number. An accurate analogy is this: an API is to a piece of software what the keyboard is to the phone.
God put it there looking like it was created millions of years ago, so he can properly asset the depth of our faith. God created the Universe, so he most certainly can pull off that prank. There, you can't argue with that. Thus, you're wrong and I'm right and that's the end of it.
Slashdot Mirror
... is to stay home. Simple as that.
Please login before trolling.
looks like a young Stalin.
Ah! Semantic fetishists are always fun. I can play too!
Basically, you're making the point that anything that can be described in terms of characteristics, can be typified. Not a total shocker when I put it in these terms, is it?
Following that perfectly valid train of thought, I'm pretty much sure that a certain ethnic group (lets call this group "the jews"), can be associated with a "type of DNA". For instance, nobody would say that black people don't share some genetic trait. An ethnic group, such as the Jews, is likely to interbreed. Sharing the religion is a very strong factor when selecting mates in some circles; in particular among orthodox Jews, for instance. Interbreeding is famously know for reinforcing genetic traits (and for its broad use in low-budget porn, but I digress...). Thus, even when I never even remotely said so, using your own definition of "types of DNA", we could very much say that Jews can be associated with certain "types of DNA".
You see what I did there, didn't you?
But perhaps you didn't mean that, right? Perhaps you meant that religious beliefs do not come from endogenous characteristics. I agree, and never said otherwise. Then again, you weren't trying to correct me, or make an argument; you were trying to be an smart-ass, insulting me and making a fuss after I made a joke. Well, congratulations, Mister Troll: I took your bait. Now you can go on jerking off to your image in the mirror. Feel free to call me stupid all your little ego desires.
Are you so stupid you believe there are "types" of DNA?
It's something that we're totaly screwing up right now, by trying to treat all possible diseases and letting all crap DNA survive, weakening our chanses of survival
...
Devolution if you will...
Adolf, is that you?
Live fast enough, and you can travel back in time. Sounds cool.
And the bed right next to it in the other 8. ;)
Do you know who else releases adrenaline in my bed? YOUR MOM ;)
Your time cube theory seems sound. Please tell me more! http://www.timecube.com/
Probably not, but "eating" them sure does... *wink wink*
Your theory about the velocity of light seems interesting. Care to tell me more?
You also forgot to login before posting.
But YOU, Mr. Anonymous Coward are the paladin of justice who comes to set the record straight, right?
Not soon enough, my friend.
That was disturbingly low and funny.
My man Bernie Maddof.
Because australian tax-payers are investing in australian infrastructure, that's why.
Copyrighting an API would not kill interoperability, because when you use an API, you don't copy it; you just use it. In particular, using a Java API based on interfaces, requires having the classfiles, not the source files. Thus, using a Java API does not require "copying the API", in the sense of using for free somebody else's work. Now, if you build you own system, which has an API, and instead of coding your own interfaces, copy the source files someone else wrote... that is "copying the API", and you'd be effectively commiting what copyright tries to protect.
Another example: web services. The API is defined by a WSDL. If you download the WSDL of an Amazon web service, for instance, and then use it in your own on-line-bookstore system or whatever, then you're copying it, and quite possibly infringing a copyright. If you implement a caller of the web service, you are using the interface for interoperability purposes, without infringing any copyright.
I was not addressing the Oracle/Google case, but the rather general case proposed by the GP. I think it's pretty clear that you can design, publish and copyright APIs, them being software artifacts. They posses no inherent condition that make this impossible, IMO... besides the "software is an algorithm and algorithms are math" argument, of course.
On the other hand, could we make the case that an API is not software?
I believe you're not thinking this properly. An API is a piece of software, just as any other. Given the current state of affairs, why shoulnd't it be subject of copyright? Perhaps you're thinking "But an API is only an Java interface, no implementation!" I say: so? Even if it an API was so simple (it's not; it includes input/ouput parameters, exceptions, a usage definition, documentation, and so on), why would the simplicity of something prevent it from being subject of copyright? Hint: comparisons with one-click-purchase do not apply.
Furthermore, an API is not the equivalent of a phone number. An accurate analogy is this: an API is to a piece of software what the keyboard is to the phone.
Where did the oil come from?
God put it there looking like it was created millions of years ago, so he can properly asset the depth of our faith. God created the Universe, so he most certainly can pull off that prank. There, you can't argue with that. Thus, you're wrong and I'm right and that's the end of it.
Now that this has been confirmed, the trolls will file patents for dogs, and we all will be screwed.
That's in dog-years, you insensitive clod.
If I put the game down for a weekend or a week or two due to Real Life
I like how you put the game on hold for real life, and not the other way around.
That's what my friend Mr. Google just told me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification