The problem with farmed fish is that their environment is not as varied and robust, as diverse, as the natural one they evolved to thrive in. Which is why salmon farms, for example, breed unhealthier fish, and not infrequently collapse. Even land farms turn into incubators for very serious diseases, like mad cow etc.
Free range farming is the most sustainable. When the eel population collapses, there's more going wrong than just less eels for our sushi. The canary in the coal mine problem isn't fixed by simply keeping canaries in zoos.
Well, I'm in the business too, and I'm not going to break my NDAs and specify whose MS software I service. But I do write and maintain apps for some pretty big traders (and directly related financial businesses). There's lots of MS platforms in their core business ops. Lots of Windows server farms, particularly running SQL Server and business objects. Tremendous horsepower, both in-house, and colo at telco hotels for low latency to exchanges - and at leasable datacenters. And starting to move some services to clouds. They're interested in Azure, and waiting to see what it's like when it's ready for prime time.
But their biggest obstacle is letting their data and algorithms, or anything in their critical path, live at Microsoft. If they had an Azure cloud distributed among the locations they control themselves, they might be closer to moving their apps to that model.
And if they could make money off their sunk hardware costs while it's "sleeping" (except for some hefty datamining and OLAP procs), they would. They'd sell their grandmother if it had a chance at a profit. And computing services rarely sell for less than the power and other ops costs to run them.
So there's probably a future in this. I wonder who else has seen more of it than I have yet. So far, only people who haven't have chimed in here.
Well I write trading systems and all kinds of other line of business apps for some of the biggest hedge funds, banks and brokers, prime and otherwise, in Midtown Manhattan. And I can assure you that they're running lots and lots of that software on the Windows platform.
Just because you don't do it doesn't mean they don't.
Is the Microsoft Azure cloud software available to install and run on these Wall St server farms during the off hours? I could see running the two separate installs on two separate fiberchannel SANs, and physically switching between them (plugging cables) and rebooting/reflashing to ensure none of either was left available to the other during the alternate operating cycles. A lot of Wall St server farms are optimized to run Windows, because otherwise the farm is too slow. If a local install of an Azure cloud could be quickly deployed and removed, that could be another huge new Microsoft product. Or, if these farms let MS operate it, a huge MS cloud service for which it doesn't have to pay for the hardware.
Except Reagan was guilty of violating the Boland Amendment. As well as guilty of supplying our enemy, Iran, with weapons. And guilty of letting the CIA ship addictive drugs into the US.
The fact that others were also guilty doesn't mean that Reagan wasn't also guilty.
It's your problem that the facts interfere with your deification of Reagan.
No. The Supreme Court has repeatedly and consistently held that no search is reasonable without a warrant, except in "exigent circumstances", where delay for a warrant is likely to give the suspect time to destroy the evidence required for a warrant. The only other exceptions, automobiles and consented searches, do not apply here. And the FISA requirements for post facto warrants do not limit issuance in only exigent circumstances.
What finally pushed the Congress into preparing to impeach Nixon was the revelation that Nixon was secretly (and, of course, warrantlessly) wiretapping Congress. Keeping Vietnam going, using the CIA to break into Democratic campaign HQ at the Watergate (and a shrink's office) - all just "business as usual". But the wiretapping was enough to push them over the edge.
So George Bush Sr, Republican National Committee Chair, went to Nixon to explain that enough Congressional Republicans would vote to impeach that he would be impeached. So Nixon resigned. And Ford, who Nixon had got to replace his original VP, Spiro Agnew, when Agnew was convicted of income tax evasion (on massive bribes he'd taken but not reported to the IRS), inherited Nixon's evil empire. George Bush Sr inherited the CIA.
And then Ford started warrantlessly wiretapping people, just like Nixon had. Nixon was wiretapping not only Congress, but all kinds of political enemies, including anti-war and environmentalist activists, counterculture figures like John Lennon. Nixon turned the White House into a Republican Kremlin. And Ford kept it that way.
In 1978, with Democrat Carter in the White House a Democratic Congress passed FISA, which was designed to be the supreme law controlling wiretapping. Nominally subordinate to only the 4th Amendment, which it violated by allowing exceptions to the Amendment's requirement of a warrant issued prior to any wiretapping.
Republican George Bush Jr inherited the presidency in 2000. And soon wiretapped every American, all our phonecalls and email, without a warrant. Even though the FISA court issued a warrant, before or after the fact, for every single one of the hundreds of thousands of requests it got, however invalid any of those requests might have been.
Even to the point of wiretapping conversations between defendants and their lawyers in cases brought by the Bush "Justice" Department, which was just ruled illegal, years later. With Bush leaving office unimpeached.
The Congress should've impeached Nixon. It should have impeached Bush. Hell, it should've impeached Reagan, for running the secret Iran/Contra wars, illegally supplying Iran with weapons and shipping drugs like cocaine and opium around on CIA planes - the investigation probably would have turned up warrantless wiretapping to protect the other illegal programmes.
But we didn't. And Republicans, even Bushes (and Cheneys) get to walk around free, free to run for office. And a large section of the public that believes "it's only a crime if you get caught" treats those criminals and traitors to their oaths to protect the Constitution as "statesmen".
As every time before, the next one will be even worse. Hi, president Romney, how ya doin'?
This time around we don't kill the "indians". Instead of invading and genociding the cultures already on the Internet, we secure our lines on them. Unlike material domains, there's infinite room on the Internet for everyone. But we should allow anyone who wants to live there securely that option, even if people want to live out in the open at their own risk.
I lived there for years, in the Northern California that was created by the rail network, and which still cradles any number of outlaw cultures. That "Western independence" myth is for people from Glennbeckistan.
I also lived in Louisiana for years. That is an ungovernable wilderness.
No, they're suggesting we don't put the power network on the Internet, because the Internet is too dangerous to secure. Just like they might have said don't put the railroad network in the Wild West, because the Wild West is too dangerous to secure. They might have said "stick to the coasts" or "just one secured corridor across the country": a private rail network that could be secured from the Wild West. Or a private power network that could be secured from the Internet.
Instead we built a rail network that tamed the West. Likewise, the security work to protect the power network would make the Internet safer for everyone. And the pair would grow both. And the US around it.
The proposition is reasonable, but wrong. Consider that in the 1840s the US was a sliver along the Atlantic and the Gulf, proposing to colonize the whole continent that it had political claims to, but which was filled with whole civilizations protecting their rightful land. Securing the West for American colonization would require unprecedented warfare and genocide, not to mention new engineering on an unprecedented scale. And they did it. The price was abominable, but that didn't stop them. And they reaped the reward, that we continue to benefit from.
We should learn from that history. Not to fail to secure what is ours, but not to do it in a way that exacts such a terrible cost. The Internet is not the 1800s American frontier, and the 21st Century has gained a lot more wisdom about the costs and alternatives. And the "natives" have a lot more power to protect themselves from the security invasion. We can secure the Internet enough to trust connecting the power grid and plenty of other essential infrastructure to it, without destroying the societies inhabiting the Internet, though protecting us from any threat from them. And gain the benefits of not just the networks, but the varied people on them.
Or we can give up on making the Internet safe for essential communications. Which will get us more expensive, more limited essential communications. And will leave the Internet vulnerable to whichever gangs care to ransack it. Securing it would be better, and is entirely possible.
Some systems are properly a monopoly. The nation shouldn't have two Army services. In general security for a given political area, like nationwide, statewide or countywide are best (or perhaps just least badly) run by a monopoly governed by officials elected by the people. Certainly at the national level that is the case.
Outsourcing that job to a private corporation to hold the national monopoly is asking for trouble. There will be no pool of private competitors competing for that contract, because the national market supports only one vendor: the one who wins that contract. That circular setup means the benefits of competition to produce the best candidate will not.
There is plenty of room for outsourcing regional security work to vendors actually competing at that scale, if indeed there are multiple vendors of security to large power grids. Let the regional front line vendors compete to keep their contracts. But the monopoly at the top that actually manages those regions into a comprehensive, integrated national infrastructure defense should be within the government. Which is the only monopoly that has a chance to behave properly.
No, we should have both a secure infrastructure and an infrastructure that benefits from connecting to the public Internet. And a public Internet that benefits from connecting to the secure infrastructure.
What you're saying is like saying we shouldn't run railroads across the Wild West because it's Wild. We needed both complete railroad networks, and a governable West. And we got both. And then we got everything else that could follow on a governable, railroad accessible West.
The American Way is to do some things because not because they're easy, but because they're hard. Because those hard things yield the greatest rewards. Including proving we can do anything worthwhile we want, even when the easy cop out beckons.
It would have been illegal if the newspaper owned all of the radio stations in a market. Except where some other corporation owned the sole radio station in a listening area, there was practically never such a monopolization of radio, especially during the 1920s-30s.
The monopolization of media markets rose as newspapers failed to compete in other media. Now we've got everything wrong: news orgs like newspapers that have both breadth and depth of coverage stay in narrow niche mediums like newsprint or gazettes, while narrow corporate interests flood the mass and interactive media with "infotainverts" that subvert the necessary informational flow in our society.
If newspapers had formed a backbone in cable TV news since the 1980s, the public might never have accepted the media monopolization that keeps us so ignorant and disinformed.
Newspaper corporations are expert at missing the boat on media changes. Newspapers could easily have gone into radio when it became a mass medium in the 1920s-1930s. Either running an entire station that just read the paper over the air, maybe with extra features inserted, in between the ads, or just syndicating readings to other stations. They could have done the same when TV came around. Both times they let their hugely popular, powerful and profitable industry get knocked down by newcomers in the new medium. By the time the Internet arrived in prime time, they were already pros at missing the boat, and this time missed the perfect medium for them to dominate.
Now they'll screw up mobile readers, because they are locked in a late 1800s mentality. They hate interactivity, customization by readers, sharing, or anything else that's different from being the voice of a central authority on facts increasingly out of touch with the reality they say they cover.
The only new medium newspapers ever tried to adopt was movies, with newsreels. A terrible way to present anything but the most sensationalistic and trivial news, but an effective propaganda tool. That is what the newspaper industry reduces itself to by treating its consumers with contempt, instead of embracing opportunities to communicate more effectively: a manipulative entertainment tool.
No wonder nobody even wraps fish with them anymore.
The Olympics is a corrupt global business. It's run by guys like Mitt Romney, who was Olympics CEO for the notably corrupt 2002 Winter games in Salt Lake City. These people will do and say anything, no matter how obviously wrong, or contradicting what they said yesterday, to get and keep control over the money flow. And it works. For them. Winners!
I don't need any fancy new UPSes, but I sure could use a whole lot of cheap ones - maybe 150KWh total capacity. Where's somewhere to buy the lowest $:KWh that can actually be gotten from some old ones, even if they're a little worn out, so long as they'll last another 5 years at that superior $:KWh? Even if they fill a whole room.
OK. It's becoming clear to me that you don't really know what you're talking about. You're repeating what you read in the Wikipedia article, and inferring wrong guesses about it.
If a Java bytecode file requires conversion at all to run on the Dalvik VM, then the Dalvik VM doesn't run Java bytecode. That is not a trivial difference. If I distribute Java bytecode, it will not run on the Dalvik VM. Nearly no one using an Android device is going to go through that coversion process, certainly not enough for a SW developer to include Android in their "Java" development platform. To the consumer, the main point of Java bytecode files in distribution is that they "just work" on their HW, even though it's different from what it was developed on. You just click a link and it runs. Converting JAR to.dex excludes Android from the market (even for free apps).
That's the most important point, but the one that makes it clear you're talking from ignorance rather than expertise is that you don't really understand even the basics of bytecodes, classes and libraries. The Swing library doesn't have special instructions. The Swing binaries are Java bytecodes just like every other Java bytecode executable, the same as any other bytecode package. If they're in scope of the local VM, whether distributed with the browser, preinstalled in the classpath, or downloaded at runtime, the VM can execute the bytecode if they're compatible with the VM's instruction set.
AFAICT, the Dalvik VM does not execute java bytecode instructions, only its own.dex instructions. Thanks for wasting my time.
The VM, whether JVM or Dalvik VM, doesn't know how to execute Swing libraries, or any other libraries. That's the point of libraries: they're just code for some machine (virtual or otherwise) to execute. So if the Swing GUI library is statically linked into the same JAR as the application, the J/VM has all the bytecode to execute.
If the Dalvik VM can run the same bytecode files that a JVM can run, and the same.java files can be compiled into that same bytecode, then how is the Dalvik VM different from a standard JVM at all?
I can't see anyone else saying that the Dalvik VM can run Java bytecode. Only that it runs.dex binaries, which are not Java bytecode. Lots of people are saying that it doesn't run Java bytecode.
BTW, you don't compile using the JVM, you compile with javac or some other compiler. Which typically runs on some regular host, like x86. The JVM has nothing to do with the bytecode until runtime of the compiled bytecode.
Where are you getting the idea that the Dalvik VM runs direct Java bytecode?
Oh yes it did. Your post-soviet propaganda post notwithstanding, the Soviet Union tried to saturate Star Wars by continuing to build ever more warheads, so a percentage getting through even a mostly effective Star Wars would still destroy the US. So the annihilation threat strategy was kept. But that did indeed push the basically unsustainable Soviet economy over the edge, which is why its most powerful people dismantled it, while there was still something to salvage.
That is what winning a war looks like. Even if you're Russian (which you are), and think winning a war can look only like establishing your government's laws and taxes over newly conquered territory, amidst piles of broken bodies and smashed cities, smoldering countryside.
The current US economic crisis doesn't at all indicate the US didn't win the Cold War. To the contrary, the US was and still is (despite the ongoing crash) able to borrow as much money as it wants, even when lenders don't want to lend. Because the US won the Cold War by creating that option, which the rest of the world was slaved to in order to be on the side that won, which it was.
The current US crash proves that Communist propaganda was right about capitalism. Just generations too late for it to be right about anything else. You should get over it if you want to be right about anything yourself. Rasputin's a good role model, but spend your extra long life freeing your mind, not wallowing in "decadent West" gibberish that just makes you look old.
The Dalvik JVM runs regular Java bytecode? And regular.java code compiles to run on the Dalvik JVM. So what's the difference between the Dalvik JVM and any other one, except the specific code that implements it?
Are there any open-source implementations of the Swing or other standard Java GUI class libraries, that could be compiled into a JAR, statically linked, and delivered along with the Java app to run on Android under the Dalvik JVM?
The greed in writing Star Wars "missile defense" contracts for the past 30 years has cost many $BILLIONS.
It's primary purpose was bankrupting the Soviet Union in an arms race, which it did, at the cost of bankrupting the US, which the US was able to (kinda) recover from, but the SU could not. We won the Cold War with the Star Wars budget as the atom bomb.
The greed today is even worse. The Cold War greed was sustainable, or at least survivable, working within limits. And the Cold War US economy had money to burn, so we did. But we have burnt all our money on a pyre of Terror War greed that has already crashed the economy worse than we could stand.
Counting on the greed being less than what we can stand is a recipe for sending the US the way of the Soviet Union. With the exact same weapon.
This project looks like it opens the door for a real JVM that runs real Java apps, real Java bytecode, not the Dalvik bytecode that has to be developed for specifically the Android platform. With a real JVM, some Java bytecode already available for download could just work, and porting a lot of the rest should be a lot easier. Which would open up a much larger existing community of developers to target these devices with apps.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with farmed fish is that their environment is not as varied and robust, as diverse, as the natural one they evolved to thrive in. Which is why salmon farms, for example, breed unhealthier fish, and not infrequently collapse. Even land farms turn into incubators for very serious diseases, like mad cow etc.
Free range farming is the most sustainable. When the eel population collapses, there's more going wrong than just less eels for our sushi. The canary in the coal mine problem isn't fixed by simply keeping canaries in zoos.
Well, I'm in the business too, and I'm not going to break my NDAs and specify whose MS software I service. But I do write and maintain apps for some pretty big traders (and directly related financial businesses). There's lots of MS platforms in their core business ops. Lots of Windows server farms, particularly running SQL Server and business objects. Tremendous horsepower, both in-house, and colo at telco hotels for low latency to exchanges - and at leasable datacenters. And starting to move some services to clouds. They're interested in Azure, and waiting to see what it's like when it's ready for prime time.
But their biggest obstacle is letting their data and algorithms, or anything in their critical path, live at Microsoft. If they had an Azure cloud distributed among the locations they control themselves, they might be closer to moving their apps to that model.
And if they could make money off their sunk hardware costs while it's "sleeping" (except for some hefty datamining and OLAP procs), they would. They'd sell their grandmother if it had a chance at a profit. And computing services rarely sell for less than the power and other ops costs to run them.
So there's probably a future in this. I wonder who else has seen more of it than I have yet. So far, only people who haven't have chimed in here.
Well I write trading systems and all kinds of other line of business apps for some of the biggest hedge funds, banks and brokers, prime and otherwise, in Midtown Manhattan. And I can assure you that they're running lots and lots of that software on the Windows platform.
Just because you don't do it doesn't mean they don't.
Is the Microsoft Azure cloud software available to install and run on these Wall St server farms during the off hours? I could see running the two separate installs on two separate fiberchannel SANs, and physically switching between them (plugging cables) and rebooting/reflashing to ensure none of either was left available to the other during the alternate operating cycles. A lot of Wall St server farms are optimized to run Windows, because otherwise the farm is too slow. If a local install of an Azure cloud could be quickly deployed and removed, that could be another huge new Microsoft product. Or, if these farms let MS operate it, a huge MS cloud service for which it doesn't have to pay for the hardware.
Except Reagan was guilty of violating the Boland Amendment. As well as guilty of supplying our enemy, Iran, with weapons. And guilty of letting the CIA ship addictive drugs into the US.
The fact that others were also guilty doesn't mean that Reagan wasn't also guilty.
It's your problem that the facts interfere with your deification of Reagan.
No. The Supreme Court has repeatedly and consistently held that no search is reasonable without a warrant, except in "exigent circumstances", where delay for a warrant is likely to give the suspect time to destroy the evidence required for a warrant. The only other exceptions, automobiles and consented searches, do not apply here. And the FISA requirements for post facto warrants do not limit issuance in only exigent circumstances.
What finally pushed the Congress into preparing to impeach Nixon was the revelation that Nixon was secretly (and, of course, warrantlessly) wiretapping Congress. Keeping Vietnam going, using the CIA to break into Democratic campaign HQ at the Watergate (and a shrink's office) - all just "business as usual". But the wiretapping was enough to push them over the edge.
So George Bush Sr, Republican National Committee Chair, went to Nixon to explain that enough Congressional Republicans would vote to impeach that he would be impeached. So Nixon resigned. And Ford, who Nixon had got to replace his original VP, Spiro Agnew, when Agnew was convicted of income tax evasion (on massive bribes he'd taken but not reported to the IRS), inherited Nixon's evil empire. George Bush Sr inherited the CIA.
And then Ford started warrantlessly wiretapping people, just like Nixon had. Nixon was wiretapping not only Congress, but all kinds of political enemies, including anti-war and environmentalist activists, counterculture figures like John Lennon. Nixon turned the White House into a Republican Kremlin. And Ford kept it that way.
In 1978, with Democrat Carter in the White House a Democratic Congress passed FISA, which was designed to be the supreme law controlling wiretapping. Nominally subordinate to only the 4th Amendment, which it violated by allowing exceptions to the Amendment's requirement of a warrant issued prior to any wiretapping.
Republican George Bush Jr inherited the presidency in 2000. And soon wiretapped every American, all our phonecalls and email, without a warrant. Even though the FISA court issued a warrant, before or after the fact, for every single one of the hundreds of thousands of requests it got, however invalid any of those requests might have been.
Even to the point of wiretapping conversations between defendants and their lawyers in cases brought by the Bush "Justice" Department, which was just ruled illegal, years later. With Bush leaving office unimpeached.
The Congress should've impeached Nixon. It should have impeached Bush. Hell, it should've impeached Reagan, for running the secret Iran/Contra wars, illegally supplying Iran with weapons and shipping drugs like cocaine and opium around on CIA planes - the investigation probably would have turned up warrantless wiretapping to protect the other illegal programmes.
But we didn't. And Republicans, even Bushes (and Cheneys) get to walk around free, free to run for office. And a large section of the public that believes "it's only a crime if you get caught" treats those criminals and traitors to their oaths to protect the Constitution as "statesmen".
As every time before, the next one will be even worse. Hi, president Romney, how ya doin'?
This time around we don't kill the "indians". Instead of invading and genociding the cultures already on the Internet, we secure our lines on them. Unlike material domains, there's infinite room on the Internet for everyone. But we should allow anyone who wants to live there securely that option, even if people want to live out in the open at their own risk.
I lived there for years, in the Northern California that was created by the rail network, and which still cradles any number of outlaw cultures. That "Western independence" myth is for people from Glennbeckistan.
I also lived in Louisiana for years. That is an ungovernable wilderness.
No, they're suggesting we don't put the power network on the Internet, because the Internet is too dangerous to secure. Just like they might have said don't put the railroad network in the Wild West, because the Wild West is too dangerous to secure. They might have said "stick to the coasts" or "just one secured corridor across the country": a private rail network that could be secured from the Wild West. Or a private power network that could be secured from the Internet.
Instead we built a rail network that tamed the West. Likewise, the security work to protect the power network would make the Internet safer for everyone. And the pair would grow both. And the US around it.
The proposition is reasonable, but wrong. Consider that in the 1840s the US was a sliver along the Atlantic and the Gulf, proposing to colonize the whole continent that it had political claims to, but which was filled with whole civilizations protecting their rightful land. Securing the West for American colonization would require unprecedented warfare and genocide, not to mention new engineering on an unprecedented scale. And they did it. The price was abominable, but that didn't stop them. And they reaped the reward, that we continue to benefit from.
We should learn from that history. Not to fail to secure what is ours, but not to do it in a way that exacts such a terrible cost. The Internet is not the 1800s American frontier, and the 21st Century has gained a lot more wisdom about the costs and alternatives. And the "natives" have a lot more power to protect themselves from the security invasion. We can secure the Internet enough to trust connecting the power grid and plenty of other essential infrastructure to it, without destroying the societies inhabiting the Internet, though protecting us from any threat from them. And gain the benefits of not just the networks, but the varied people on them.
Or we can give up on making the Internet safe for essential communications. Which will get us more expensive, more limited essential communications. And will leave the Internet vulnerable to whichever gangs care to ransack it. Securing it would be better, and is entirely possible.
Some systems are properly a monopoly. The nation shouldn't have two Army services. In general security for a given political area, like nationwide, statewide or countywide are best (or perhaps just least badly) run by a monopoly governed by officials elected by the people. Certainly at the national level that is the case.
Outsourcing that job to a private corporation to hold the national monopoly is asking for trouble. There will be no pool of private competitors competing for that contract, because the national market supports only one vendor: the one who wins that contract. That circular setup means the benefits of competition to produce the best candidate will not.
There is plenty of room for outsourcing regional security work to vendors actually competing at that scale, if indeed there are multiple vendors of security to large power grids. Let the regional front line vendors compete to keep their contracts. But the monopoly at the top that actually manages those regions into a comprehensive, integrated national infrastructure defense should be within the government. Which is the only monopoly that has a chance to behave properly.
No, we should have both a secure infrastructure and an infrastructure that benefits from connecting to the public Internet. And a public Internet that benefits from connecting to the secure infrastructure.
What you're saying is like saying we shouldn't run railroads across the Wild West because it's Wild. We needed both complete railroad networks, and a governable West. And we got both. And then we got everything else that could follow on a governable, railroad accessible West.
The American Way is to do some things because not because they're easy, but because they're hard. Because those hard things yield the greatest rewards. Including proving we can do anything worthwhile we want, even when the easy cop out beckons.
It would have been illegal if the newspaper owned all of the radio stations in a market. Except where some other corporation owned the sole radio station in a listening area, there was practically never such a monopolization of radio, especially during the 1920s-30s.
The monopolization of media markets rose as newspapers failed to compete in other media. Now we've got everything wrong: news orgs like newspapers that have both breadth and depth of coverage stay in narrow niche mediums like newsprint or gazettes, while narrow corporate interests flood the mass and interactive media with "infotainverts" that subvert the necessary informational flow in our society.
If newspapers had formed a backbone in cable TV news since the 1980s, the public might never have accepted the media monopolization that keeps us so ignorant and disinformed.
Newspaper corporations are expert at missing the boat on media changes. Newspapers could easily have gone into radio when it became a mass medium in the 1920s-1930s. Either running an entire station that just read the paper over the air, maybe with extra features inserted, in between the ads, or just syndicating readings to other stations. They could have done the same when TV came around. Both times they let their hugely popular, powerful and profitable industry get knocked down by newcomers in the new medium. By the time the Internet arrived in prime time, they were already pros at missing the boat, and this time missed the perfect medium for them to dominate.
Now they'll screw up mobile readers, because they are locked in a late 1800s mentality. They hate interactivity, customization by readers, sharing, or anything else that's different from being the voice of a central authority on facts increasingly out of touch with the reality they say they cover.
The only new medium newspapers ever tried to adopt was movies, with newsreels. A terrible way to present anything but the most sensationalistic and trivial news, but an effective propaganda tool. That is what the newspaper industry reduces itself to by treating its consumers with contempt, instead of embracing opportunities to communicate more effectively: a manipulative entertainment tool.
No wonder nobody even wraps fish with them anymore.
The Olympics is a corrupt global business. It's run by guys like Mitt Romney, who was Olympics CEO for the notably corrupt 2002 Winter games in Salt Lake City. These people will do and say anything, no matter how obviously wrong, or contradicting what they said yesterday, to get and keep control over the money flow. And it works. For them. Winners!
So how do the compilers of TV show schedules like TV Guide keep people from freely redistributing them, to make software like MythTV work well?
I don't need any fancy new UPSes, but I sure could use a whole lot of cheap ones - maybe 150KWh total capacity. Where's somewhere to buy the lowest $:KWh that can actually be gotten from some old ones, even if they're a little worn out, so long as they'll last another 5 years at that superior $:KWh? Even if they fill a whole room.
OK. It's becoming clear to me that you don't really know what you're talking about. You're repeating what you read in the Wikipedia article, and inferring wrong guesses about it.
If a Java bytecode file requires conversion at all to run on the Dalvik VM, then the Dalvik VM doesn't run Java bytecode. That is not a trivial difference. If I distribute Java bytecode, it will not run on the Dalvik VM. Nearly no one using an Android device is going to go through that coversion process, certainly not enough for a SW developer to include Android in their "Java" development platform. To the consumer, the main point of Java bytecode files in distribution is that they "just work" on their HW, even though it's different from what it was developed on. You just click a link and it runs. Converting JAR to .dex excludes Android from the market (even for free apps).
That's the most important point, but the one that makes it clear you're talking from ignorance rather than expertise is that you don't really understand even the basics of bytecodes, classes and libraries. The Swing library doesn't have special instructions. The Swing binaries are Java bytecodes just like every other Java bytecode executable, the same as any other bytecode package. If they're in scope of the local VM, whether distributed with the browser, preinstalled in the classpath, or downloaded at runtime, the VM can execute the bytecode if they're compatible with the VM's instruction set.
AFAICT, the Dalvik VM does not execute java bytecode instructions, only its own .dex instructions. Thanks for wasting my time.
The VM, whether JVM or Dalvik VM, doesn't know how to execute Swing libraries, or any other libraries. That's the point of libraries: they're just code for some machine (virtual or otherwise) to execute. So if the Swing GUI library is statically linked into the same JAR as the application, the J/VM has all the bytecode to execute.
If the Dalvik VM can run the same bytecode files that a JVM can run, and the same .java files can be compiled into that same bytecode, then how is the Dalvik VM different from a standard JVM at all?
I can't see anyone else saying that the Dalvik VM can run Java bytecode. Only that it runs .dex binaries, which are not Java bytecode. Lots of people are saying that it doesn't run Java bytecode.
BTW, you don't compile using the JVM, you compile with javac or some other compiler. Which typically runs on some regular host, like x86. The JVM has nothing to do with the bytecode until runtime of the compiled bytecode.
Where are you getting the idea that the Dalvik VM runs direct Java bytecode?
Oh yes it did. Your post-soviet propaganda post notwithstanding, the Soviet Union tried to saturate Star Wars by continuing to build ever more warheads, so a percentage getting through even a mostly effective Star Wars would still destroy the US. So the annihilation threat strategy was kept. But that did indeed push the basically unsustainable Soviet economy over the edge, which is why its most powerful people dismantled it, while there was still something to salvage.
That is what winning a war looks like. Even if you're Russian (which you are), and think winning a war can look only like establishing your government's laws and taxes over newly conquered territory, amidst piles of broken bodies and smashed cities, smoldering countryside.
The current US economic crisis doesn't at all indicate the US didn't win the Cold War. To the contrary, the US was and still is (despite the ongoing crash) able to borrow as much money as it wants, even when lenders don't want to lend. Because the US won the Cold War by creating that option, which the rest of the world was slaved to in order to be on the side that won, which it was.
The current US crash proves that Communist propaganda was right about capitalism. Just generations too late for it to be right about anything else. You should get over it if you want to be right about anything yourself. Rasputin's a good role model, but spend your extra long life freeing your mind, not wallowing in "decadent West" gibberish that just makes you look old.
The Dalvik JVM runs regular Java bytecode? And regular .java code compiles to run on the Dalvik JVM. So what's the difference between the Dalvik JVM and any other one, except the specific code that implements it?
Are there any open-source implementations of the Swing or other standard Java GUI class libraries, that could be compiled into a JAR, statically linked, and delivered along with the Java app to run on Android under the Dalvik JVM?
Your reading comprehension has a bug:
The greed in writing Star Wars "missile defense" contracts for the past 30 years has cost many $BILLIONS.
It's primary purpose was bankrupting the Soviet Union in an arms race, which it did, at the cost of bankrupting the US, which the US was able to (kinda) recover from, but the SU could not. We won the Cold War with the Star Wars budget as the atom bomb.
The greed today is even worse. The Cold War greed was sustainable, or at least survivable, working within limits. And the Cold War US economy had money to burn, so we did. But we have burnt all our money on a pyre of Terror War greed that has already crashed the economy worse than we could stand.
Counting on the greed being less than what we can stand is a recipe for sending the US the way of the Soviet Union. With the exact same weapon.
The news that a botnet is killing its rivals is nowhere near as disturbing as the news that it's decided to kill its rivals.
This project looks like it opens the door for a real JVM that runs real Java apps, real Java bytecode, not the Dalvik bytecode that has to be developed for specifically the Android platform. With a real JVM, some Java bytecode already available for download could just work, and porting a lot of the rest should be a lot easier. Which would open up a much larger existing community of developers to target these devices with apps.