If APIs are found to be protected under copyright, won't this mean something like Mono C# violates copyright as well?
And what about a DirectX emulator for Linux for example?
This doesn't sound right. These 3rd party APIs are, to me at least, the software equivalent of reverse engineering. Figuring out how the original works by providing emulation. This should be protected behavior or else it will be easier for companies to inadvertently gain new monopolies...
What are the chances that this was produced from or in part from the iPhone 5 designs or parts? We've heard the stories about factories in China often continue production after the official 'stop' resulting in counterfeit products that are actually the same products, just unauthorized.
Isn't it conceivable that there could be certain parts meant for iPhone 5 already in production and that these parts were used to make this new phone?
The main point is what people actually care about, and not whether there was harm or not. If someone stole 10 cents from you, it is harm technically. Do people care? Probably not.
Let's not leave aside the problem of revealing confidential information. Gizmodo could have harmed Apple's business interests and this is something that can be shown in court. I'm not saying Apple has given up on this; they should pursue if they can show it. But at the least, the San Mateo DA has given up, indicating he doesn't think there could be much of a criminal case on this.
So because neither side will pursue their cases (yet), we don't give a fuck. (Quoting the original grand parent post who used rude language as if that makes his point stronger.)
That's right. Nobody gives a fuck if there's no harm to the company that can actually be proven in court. Who cares how much the company is worth? That's just a specious argument.
We do care about one of the most valuable companies in the world using cash and lawsuits to censor information that causes no harm, however.
"They that sow the wind, shall reap the whirlwind."
I'm sure before nearly every nation on earth was dragged into World War 1 that they thought it was a good idea to get into a 'little fight.' At least times will be interesting again...
This is the quote and the relevant word is 'premature.' No one is arguing that we should never optimize. The problem is if we optimize thinking that 'we know best.' It's as if somehow, magically, we know where the slowdowns are without doing actual performance monitoring. "It's a O(n^3) loop, so it must be bad."
Optimizations frequently cause the code to be less maintainable. Optimizations can also take time to implement and document. Also, optimizations are only important in areas that we care about. If an optimization makes code run 5 milliseconds faster in an area where we don't mind waiting 10 seconds, then that optimization is not useful.
An O(n^3) loop is perfectly fine if: 1. it performs fast enough and... 2. it's allows for speed of implementation and code readability. However, if you perform an analysis and find that it is sucking up a bunch of time, then by all means, improve it.
But not until you've got the results of that analysis. And not a 'hunch.'
Slashdot Mirror
If APIs are found to be protected under copyright, won't this mean something like Mono C# violates copyright as well?
And what about a DirectX emulator for Linux for example?
This doesn't sound right. These 3rd party APIs are, to me at least, the software equivalent of reverse engineering. Figuring out how the original works by providing emulation. This should be protected behavior or else it will be easier for companies to inadvertently gain new monopolies...
What are the chances that this was produced from or in part from the iPhone 5 designs or parts? We've heard the stories about factories in China often continue production after the official 'stop' resulting in counterfeit products that are actually the same products, just unauthorized.
Isn't it conceivable that there could be certain parts meant for iPhone 5 already in production and that these parts were used to make this new phone?
Just a thought...
The main point is what people actually care about, and not whether there was harm or not. If someone stole 10 cents from you, it is harm technically. Do people care? Probably not.
Let's not leave aside the problem of revealing confidential information. Gizmodo could have harmed Apple's business interests and this is something that can be shown in court. I'm not saying Apple has given up on this; they should pursue if they can show it. But at the least, the San Mateo DA has given up, indicating he doesn't think there could be much of a criminal case on this.
So because neither side will pursue their cases (yet), we don't give a fuck. (Quoting the original grand parent post who used rude language as if that makes his point stronger.)
That's right. Nobody gives a fuck if there's no harm to the company that can actually be proven in court. Who cares how much the company is worth? That's just a specious argument.
We do care about one of the most valuable companies in the world using cash and lawsuits to censor information that causes no harm, however.
"They that sow the wind, shall reap the whirlwind."
I'm sure before nearly every nation on earth was dragged into World War 1 that they thought it was a good idea to get into a 'little fight.' At least times will be interesting again...
"premature optimization is the root of all evil"
This is the quote and the relevant word is 'premature.' No one is arguing that we should never optimize. The problem is if we optimize thinking that 'we know best.' It's as if somehow, magically, we know where the slowdowns are without doing actual performance monitoring. "It's a O(n^3) loop, so it must be bad."
Optimizations frequently cause the code to be less maintainable. Optimizations can also take time to implement and document. Also, optimizations are only important in areas that we care about. If an optimization makes code run 5 milliseconds faster in an area where we don't mind waiting 10 seconds, then that optimization is not useful.
An O(n^3) loop is perfectly fine if: 1. it performs fast enough and... 2. it's allows for speed of implementation and code readability. However, if you perform an analysis and find that it is sucking up a bunch of time, then by all means, improve it.
But not until you've got the results of that analysis. And not a 'hunch.'
Optimizaion: Your Worst Enemy
http://www.flounder.com/optimization.htm
Joseph M. Newcomer