Absolutely. Ada was designed to be like mainstream languages it has a small and gradual learning curve. I don't understand why the sorts of companies that want to use a mainstream language and want exceptional reliability don't use it.
The idea is that between modules you always include a security level:
require check the input. Thus it is able to detect a bug in client. ensure checks the output before sending. Thus it is able to detect a bug in supplier, that is an input which gave an unexpected/unreliable/unusable output was in some way unexpected in its effects. The ensure code prevents the situation of the caller's code being more flexible and handling a weird input but creating a call with variables the responder's code is having trouble processing.
I'm not sure I agree. Your argument is that the jury ruled wrongly. If the judge had felt that there Apple had failed to make their case she shouldn't have let it go to the jury. This strikes me as a rather subjective matter of fact, exactly what an appeals court is likely to defer to the jury. But I guess we shall see.
I agree with you. I was simply laying out the series of events to ggp.
There are ways artificial can be meant though other than government manipulation which are true.
a) Artificial pricing meaning above industry average margins. In other words a pricing scheme that will lead to more people entering a market. In which case it is true that under that definition right now HDD prices are artificially high. This what people mean when they say "Apple's computers are priced artificially high", or "magazine prices are artificially high so that mall book stores and convenience stores carry extra magazines".
b) That the is some sort of trust like collusion. Artificial pricing here is a legal term. And were these American companies I suspect what is going on might be seen as illegal.
Take bounce back. Clearly Samsung implemented bounce back, clearly the jury found the Samsung mechanism was closely enough to Apple's to violate the patents. How does this not get upheld?
Look and feel issues like home button, rounded corners, tapered edges... that is making a product that appears to similar to another competing product. That sort of thing gets enforced all the time. Fake watches, fake coats, fake purses, There is nothing unusual there.
Yes. Margins are much higher. Essentially what happened:
a) A situation of oversupply in the HDD market leading to thin and sometimes negative margins. b) Huge drop in supply due to natural disaster c) drop in supply causes sharp increase in price which leads remaining suppliers to experience high margins d) as supply comes back on board margins remain high because there isn't oversupply
Apple needed evidence from Samsung, the discovery process. Some of this evidence Samsung destroyed and some of which Samsung handed over late. Apple can make allegations but the actual proof of the process of how Samsung developed their ideas was not something Apple had prior to the case.
The jury's verdict meets the reasonable man standard. While the foreman may have been more hostile than warranted and Samsung has grounds to have the evidence looked at, in an appeal the burden will be on Samsung not Apple. I don't see how Samsung, based on what we know at this point can possibly meet that increased burden.
I think the judge here has handled this rather well. With the exception of the handling of the F700 evidence, I think the entire case was handled rather well. There were major breakthroughs on patent issues where MeeGo (now Sailfish), Windows 8, and BBOS (9 and 10). Many of the specific patent issues were ruled on.
Taking these bans off the table is a very good thing. While I think Samsung most certainly engaged in patent violations and deserve the penalty, they aren't a criminal enterprise, they are going to pay reasonable fines and comply with the law.
I don't think so. By 2015 we may be looking at 1b phones / yr, a majority of them on the low end. Samsung is already a huge player in the market.... 20m units for 5 years is not even very aggressive.
The Wayland architecture integrates the display server, window manager and compositor into one process. You can think of Wayland as a toolkit for creating clients and compositors. It is not a specific single compositor or window manager. If you want a different window manager, you can write a new one.
This may sound like a lot of work, but one of the key points about Wayland is that the boilerplate code to a Wayland compositor is comparable or less than the X boilerplate involved in becoming an X window manager and compositor. Bringing up EGL and GLES2 on the Linux KMS framebuffer and reading input from evdev can be done in less than a thousand lines of code. The Wayland server side library provides the protocol implementation and makes it easy to put the pieces together.
Enlightenment / EFL is the window manager widget set for Tizen. Its likely to end up in a 100m+ devices.
Re:Capitalism doesn't _produce_ free markets
on
The Web We Lost
·
· Score: 1
Government regulate societies large corporations are going to have extensive involvement with governments whether they are monopolies or not.
De Beers is not a monopoly, though they do have a large share of the market.
De Beers is able to regulate and control the pricing in their market.
Oh... and to the extent they've maintained a monopoly on production, that's been a government-supported operation.
How? De Beers has African government support. With the diamonds in the USA in the 60s, Russia and Australia more recently.... those governments are in bed with De Beers.
OPEC isn't a company, it's a colluding set of governments..
OPEC is a classical cartel. As for the governments, the parts of the cartel are often state owned or state run oil companies but so what? There is no government for the world (other than the UN which obviously isn't strong enough).
The governments of OPEC countries don't allow anyone else to drill for their oil, regardless of prices. Of course they do. The French, the Americans, the Russians, the Chinese all have drilling contracts with OPEC countries.
And yet... if you actually look at the details you find that governments do create and perpetuate monopolies all the time, and that monopolies are rarely, if ever, achieved or sustained without government support.
I don't think any large business is sustained without government support. Pfizer wouldn't be in business for long if the US government didn't have any interest in patent law for drugs. But monopolies don't seem to need any extra support.
The fact is that while extremely large organizations can achieve great economies of scale, they also suffer from many inefficiencies due to scale as well, and in a free market other players will find ways to exploit that fact and undercut them.
Sometimes but that can often take many years or a few generations. The monopoly absent regulations can often stall this by making their customers and vendors unreceptive through incentives. Monopolies don't have to last 3000 years to cause immense misery they can do a lot of damage in 30.
To support that claim, you'd have to show that such examples are extremely common and that only government intervention prevents them.
Governments are generally fairly hostile to powerful players that are not cooperative. So as companies become more powerful either the government intervenes to stop the monopoly or the company and the government come to terms and the monopoly becomes a quasi-government entity. Most monopolies would meat your "government supports" for this reason, and most times governments just simply block the formation of monopolies.
I don't agree with GP that all capitalism tends to hit monopoly as a natural state. On the other hand I don't agree with you that capitalism doesn't reward monopoly and allow for it form and perpetuate itself. I think there is a lot of room between always and never for "some of the time".
Re:Capitalism doesn't _produce_ free markets
on
The Web We Lost
·
· Score: 1
The only successful, long-lived monopolies in history have been created and/or maintained by government regulation.
De Beers. OPEC. Swire Group (shipping monopolies in many markets through its history.
Should I keep going? The idea that monopolies are short lived without government regulation is libertarian BS where good stuff gets attributed to "capitalism" and bad stuff to "government".
Re:Ever Heard of Capitalism?
on
The Web We Lost
·
· Score: 1
Capitalism doesn't produce free markets in that sense. What you are asking for is highly regulated markets where the government actively prevents companies from using leverage to advance their market position i.e. strong anti-trust enforcement. That's regulated corporatism not capitalism. Arguably a much better system as long as you have a good government.
Re:Uh...it's still there, you know
on
The Web We Lost
·
· Score: 1
usenet was blocked by my provider
Do you mean they don't offer their own NNTP server or the they block the port? There are still several thousand free public NNTP servers and some really good pay ones. political parties that dared to offer peer-to-peer systems into oblivion
Could you link to what you are referring to here?
Re:Uh...it's still there, you know
on
The Web We Lost
·
· Score: 1
Now that's a good point. A far better discussion than the original article. I don't know if you are right or wrong because so far what we have is thousands of services trying to attract a large audience then tightening up as they get one to monazite it and that causing shrinkage to new social sites. A sort of constant up and down churn. So I see the lockout as unlikely.
Re:Uh...it's still there, you know
on
The Web We Lost
·
· Score: 1
10 years ago? Huh? There were just as many commercial sites then. That hasnt' changed in 10 years. The web was always commercial once the details were worked out, starting about '94. Webservers cost money and took skill to setup. Academia yielded to business in the mid 1990s. People didn't have personal websites until business started needing people to create cheap content to sell web ads.
Re:Uh...it's still there, you knowi
on
The Web We Lost
·
· Score: 1
I agree with the point you are making but you have that backwards.
AOL people when they got usenet thought it was a specialized type of AOL chatroom. They thought the internet was AOL.
Compuserve people never had that problem. They had always had lots of paid services so they understood the distinction between Compuserver native and the internet based services.
Re:Uh...it's still there, you know
on
The Web We Lost
·
· Score: 1
That's the state of most "Android" devices sold in the world (not 1st world): no google play (except the free stuff), no Google services but Android as a pure OS and secondary app markets that are device / country specific.
Slashdot Mirror
Absolutely. Ada was designed to be like mainstream languages it has a small and gradual learning curve. I don't understand why the sorts of companies that want to use a mainstream language and want exceptional reliability don't use it.
The idea is that between modules you always include a security level:
require check the input. Thus it is able to detect a bug in client.
ensure checks the output before sending. Thus it is able to detect a bug in supplier, that is an input which gave an unexpected/unreliable/unusable output was in some way unexpected in its effects. The ensure code prevents the situation of the caller's code being more flexible and handling a weird input but creating a call with variables the responder's code is having trouble processing.
Oh I see didn't realize the management was switching that dramatically.
Which is really sad. WD used to be an innovator and Seagate used to sell high end SCSI drives. Oh well. Good info though.
I'm not sure I agree. Your argument is that the jury ruled wrongly. If the judge had felt that there Apple had failed to make their case she shouldn't have let it go to the jury. This strikes me as a rather subjective matter of fact, exactly what an appeals court is likely to defer to the jury. But I guess we shall see.
That was Samsung's case. It was tried in multiple courts and found to be false.
I agree with you. I was simply laying out the series of events to ggp.
There are ways artificial can be meant though other than government manipulation which are true.
a) Artificial pricing meaning above industry average margins. In other words a pricing scheme that will lead to more people entering a market. In which case it is true that under that definition right now HDD prices are artificially high. This what people mean when they say "Apple's computers are priced artificially high", or "magazine prices are artificially high so that mall book stores and convenience stores carry extra magazines".
b) That the is some sort of trust like collusion. Artificial pricing here is a legal term. And were these American companies I suspect what is going on might be seen as illegal.
etc...
No I don't follow.
Take bounce back. Clearly Samsung implemented bounce back, clearly the jury found the Samsung mechanism was closely enough to Apple's to violate the patents. How does this not get upheld?
Look and feel issues like home button, rounded corners, tapered edges... that is making a product that appears to similar to another competing product. That sort of thing gets enforced all the time. Fake watches, fake coats, fake purses, There is nothing unusual there.
etc...
Yes. Margins are much higher. Essentially what happened:
a) A situation of oversupply in the HDD market leading to thin and sometimes negative margins.
b) Huge drop in supply due to natural disaster
c) drop in supply causes sharp increase in price which leads remaining suppliers to experience high margins
d) as supply comes back on board margins remain high because there isn't oversupply
Apple needed evidence from Samsung, the discovery process. Some of this evidence Samsung destroyed and some of which Samsung handed over late. Apple can make allegations but the actual proof of the process of how Samsung developed their ideas was not something Apple had prior to the case.
The jury's verdict meets the reasonable man standard. While the foreman may have been more hostile than warranted and Samsung has grounds to have the evidence looked at, in an appeal the burden will be on Samsung not Apple. I don't see how Samsung, based on what we know at this point can possibly meet that increased burden.
As for prior art, the comments below apply.
I think the judge here has handled this rather well. With the exception of the handling of the F700 evidence, I think the entire case was handled rather well. There were major breakthroughs on patent issues where MeeGo (now Sailfish), Windows 8, and BBOS (9 and 10). Many of the specific patent issues were ruled on.
Taking these bans off the table is a very good thing. While I think Samsung most certainly engaged in patent violations and deserve the penalty, they aren't a criminal enterprise, they are going to pay reasonable fines and comply with the law.
I don't think so. By 2015 we may be looking at 1b phones / yr, a majority of them on the low end. Samsung is already a huge player in the market.... 20m units for 5 years is not even very aggressive.
From the FAQ:
http://wayland.freedesktop.org/faq.html#heading_toc_j_11
When GPL code is intermixed with BSD the rule is either:
a) Treat it all like GPL
b) Be very careful and don't be confused about what is being used where.
Wayland window manager are built in. Most of the Enlightenment code couldn't be used. On the other hand the EFL probably could be ported.
Enlightenment / EFL is the window manager widget set for Tizen. Its likely to end up in a 100m+ devices.
Government regulate societies large corporations are going to have extensive involvement with governments whether they are monopolies or not.
De Beers is not a monopoly, though they do have a large share of the market.
De Beers is able to regulate and control the pricing in their market.
Oh... and to the extent they've maintained a monopoly on production, that's been a government-supported operation.
How? De Beers has African government support. With the diamonds in the USA in the 60s, Russia and Australia more recently.... those governments are in bed with De Beers.
OPEC isn't a company, it's a colluding set of governments..
OPEC is a classical cartel. As for the governments, the parts of the cartel are often state owned or state run oil companies but so what? There is no government for the world (other than the UN which obviously isn't strong enough).
The governments of OPEC countries don't allow anyone else to drill for their oil, regardless of prices.
Of course they do. The French, the Americans, the Russians, the Chinese all have drilling contracts with OPEC countries.
And yet... if you actually look at the details you find that governments do create and perpetuate monopolies all the time, and that monopolies are rarely, if ever, achieved or sustained without government support.
I don't think any large business is sustained without government support. Pfizer wouldn't be in business for long if the US government didn't have any interest in patent law for drugs. But monopolies don't seem to need any extra support.
The fact is that while extremely large organizations can achieve great economies of scale, they also suffer from many inefficiencies due to scale as well, and in a free market other players will find ways to exploit that fact and undercut them.
Sometimes but that can often take many years or a few generations. The monopoly absent regulations can often stall this by making their customers and vendors unreceptive through incentives. Monopolies don't have to last 3000 years to cause immense misery they can do a lot of damage in 30.
To support that claim, you'd have to show that such examples are extremely common and that only government intervention prevents them.
Governments are generally fairly hostile to powerful players that are not cooperative. So as companies become more powerful either the government intervenes to stop the monopoly or the company and the government come to terms and the monopoly becomes a quasi-government entity. Most monopolies would meat your "government supports" for this reason, and most times governments just simply block the formation of monopolies.
I don't agree with GP that all capitalism tends to hit monopoly as a natural state. On the other hand I don't agree with you that capitalism doesn't reward monopoly and allow for it form and perpetuate itself. I think there is a lot of room between always and never for "some of the time".
The only successful, long-lived monopolies in history have been created and/or maintained by government regulation.
De Beers. OPEC. Swire Group (shipping monopolies in many markets through its history.
Should I keep going? The idea that monopolies are short lived without government regulation is libertarian BS where good stuff gets attributed to "capitalism" and bad stuff to "government".
Capitalism doesn't produce free markets in that sense. What you are asking for is highly regulated markets where the government actively prevents companies from using leverage to advance their market position i.e. strong anti-trust enforcement. That's regulated corporatism not capitalism. Arguably a much better system as long as you have a good government.
usenet was blocked by my provider
Do you mean they don't offer their own NNTP server or the they block the port? There are still several thousand free public NNTP servers and some really good pay ones.
political parties that dared to offer peer-to-peer systems into oblivion
Could you link to what you are referring to here?
Now that's a good point. A far better discussion than the original article. I don't know if you are right or wrong because so far what we have is thousands of services trying to attract a large audience then tightening up as they get one to monazite it and that causing shrinkage to new social sites. A sort of constant up and down churn. So I see the lockout as unlikely.
10 years ago? Huh? There were just as many commercial sites then. That hasnt' changed in 10 years. The web was always commercial once the details were worked out, starting about '94. Webservers cost money and took skill to setup. Academia yielded to business in the mid 1990s. People didn't have personal websites until business started needing people to create cheap content to sell web ads.
I agree with the point you are making but you have that backwards.
AOL people when they got usenet thought it was a specialized type of AOL chatroom. They thought the internet was AOL.
Compuserve people never had that problem. They had always had lots of paid services so they understood the distinction between Compuserver native and the internet based services.
That's the state of most "Android" devices sold in the world (not 1st world): no google play (except the free stuff), no Google services but Android as a pure OS and secondary app markets that are device / country specific.