We used to say "the system should function despite the presence of greedy men" and now we say "greed is good"
The term 'political sophistication' really means 'training normal people to think like psychopaths'. This is because the current political system is based on violence, so to use it successfully you have to think that way.
If no one is taxed then you have no roads, no sewage, no water, no defense, no social security or medicare, no police, no fire departments, no free schools, etc. Unless you're wealthy of course and just buy your own.
There is voluminous scholarship showing historical systems that have used other models and there are even better proposals for systems that achieve all that, and much more, for the same level of spending that the State apparatus.
For just one small example that disproves the rule, I live on a road that was a private turnpike before the State sized control in the 1870's. From a broader perspective, many feel that the notion that we will achieve societal peace and prosperity through violence and extortion is fundamental impossibility (read Gandhi for more on this).
It's a silly notion to think that we've achieved the pinnace of human societal evolution at this particular point in time. The next evolution will be something that somebody has proposed that's not the current status quo. We may or may not have those proposals in-hand in 2012, but to be informed takes independent investigation - these won't be covered in State-controlled schools.
There's something wrong with every vaccine - 10% or so of the people don't get a sufficient immune response to get immunity. That's why it's more useful when more people get the vaccine.
Unfortunately, some people take this as justification to use violence to vaccinate people against their will. I see far too little vaccine education in popular media venues (and the science is not taught in most schools).
I can tell you my preference with regard to whether implementation of an API is a derived work, but I have no idea what a ruling would be on it.... I don't think he *can* know. This is what this trial is going to determine. Scary.
There could be a silver lining - if the courts rule against what we'd consider the 'progress of science and the useful arts' at least our next set of licenses will account for this 'trap' and people will be forever leery of any language product license that doesn't offer such a grant. Perhaps it's even time to be proactive about it, to protect people in all jurisdictions.
I remember when I was a kid in the 70s, I used to think I might go into space myself
Elon Musk is going to retire on Mars. He'll sell you a ticket too.
By all indications he's going to do it. His cargo ship docks with the ISS in a couple weeks.
I seem to recall a recent story that he'll be selling lunar orbits for $500K in the coming decade. That might be too much for a refrigerator salesman, but for over two million Americans that's just one year's income. If just one half of one percent of those people take him up on it, that's ten thousand new astronauts, and a new launch to the moon every day for five years (assuming 5 passengers, two crew).
By contrast, government spaceflight programs get in a big huff when one rich businessman buys a seat on a trip to the ISS from the Russians.
In short, we've never been closer to realizing your dream.
Yes, and the use of the software is to compile and run the language. If you can't use the language then you can't use the software, which would be contrary to the GPL grant of use.
having the license for a particular implementation doesn't mean you can use it without patent infringement.
GPLv2 has an implicit patent grant. That was the part I blockquoted above.
Wrong, the correct answer is, "It's a trap! [skife.org]"
GPLv2 does contain an implicit patent grant. v3 makes it explicit.
The article could be correct, but it's predicting the outcome of a court case (one that would have to invalidate the implicit patent grant in v2) that hasn't been brought yet.
You're talking about some software, a given implementation of the Java programming language.
yes, and if you're using this implementation or any GPLv2 compliant derivative of it you have a license to use the language, as that is the 'USE' of the implementation.
I realize that Google is making an argument for free use of the language without license - my only point is that they could have avoided the issue if they were willing to be open, and that most developers don't have to worry about this (unless they want to remain proprietary).
Java as GPL was unvailable at the time Google developed dalvik. Sun freed the code later.
That's true as of 2005, but they could have forked and merged any time after Nov. 2006, even if they didn't keep a tremendous amount of the original OpenJDK code (IIRC having some of the headers is part of the current argument).
They'd just have to re-license the Android, Inc. code under GPL and then merge it.
I suppose Oracle could have still gone after them for pre-2006 'violations' but I think it would be hard to prove much in the way of damages from that time period.
Google: Anyone can use the JPL without paying royalties, yes?
Ellison: Not sure.
The correct answer is, "of course they can, it was released under the GPLv2 which says, in part:
7.... If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
But... and I think this is the rub of the case - even though anybody can use Java freely through the GPL, it's not known that Google went that route, probably to avoid having to make Android redistributable (even though it often is anyway). At least I haven't seen Google claim that Davlik etc. are derivavtive works of the GPLv2 release of Java.
So, the ability to keep Android closed when they want to must be worth more to Google than whatever they might eventually have to pay to Oracle.
The VC's were not interested in in his idea beyond the point of ensuring it was valid and had potential. They were really interested in whether HE could bring it to market.
Usually. I once had a VC look at work I was doing and then take one of the ideas to another company he was working with.
No loss to me really, I didn't have the means to execute the idea at the time, but he was still a dick about it.
In general, avoid VC's. They're there mostly to take your ideas and fire you. Though sometimes you get a decent payday in the process.
If you think it is too broad and vague, suggest something better.
Definitely make your concerns known, but watch out because even worse than broad and vague is comprehensive and precise. I once got handed a 200-page NDA/boilerplate for a sub-contracting job. It even cited other documents to refer to. It would have cost me 60% of the job's value to have an attorney review it for me.
I told the guy who was hiring about this, and he understood my point, so he spoke with his company's people, and they came back with a 3-pager and a different way of arranging the contract.
Personally, I'd prefer my pilots to take evasive action when they feel its neccessary, and not pick up a habit of second guessing themselves to avoid bad PR
Pilots second-guessing their instruments is a major cause of crashes.
But I think the bigger problem is that it sounds like Air Canada engaged in a systematic cover-up of this incident, and are only now admitting it because they were outed by the government report.
These days, my wife and I have a policy of always putting thermal paper receipts in a baggy that we keep in the freezer. The thermal paper printing does not seem to ever fade as long as the paper is kept cool.
Wow, that's both very useful to know and absolutely crazy to have to do!
Put a TrueCrypt partition on the drive. Encryption needs to be done at the ends; they are just providing a bit storage medium.
If the protocol is at all useful, there will be a FUSE filesystem that does efficient (small-block oriented) encrypted storage on Google Drive within a month.
The replacement policy required the original receipt... no photocopies or duplicates...
Most stores use thermal paper receipts which fade after a year or so. What would be interesting would be to send them a faded 10-year old piece of thermal paper and see what happens.:)
their guarantees are just a scam to get you buy their bulbs.
I might be more diligent keeping the receipt and packaging with a $20 lamp, but probably not.
Fortunately for them the thermal receipt will fade after two years. Be careful of "original receipt required" clauses (sounds innocuous at first glance, right?)
absolutely zero benefit to our organization. I'm fine with running ipv4 into the ground. I just don't care anymore. I hate ipv6.
Is your organization an ISP? A multi-national corporation? If not, you jumped in too early. When it's not really expensive to get a routed IPv6 network then you should start to pay attention.
I still have no god damn idea why Oracle is doing this other than amazing short sightedness.
The conventional analysis is that Oracle needs some of Google's key database patents to be able to scale Oracle Database much beyond it's current state. They only bought Sun to get Java to clobber Google over the head with, so they'd enter into a patent-cross-licensing deal.
Presumbaly Google has this figured out and either intends to drag this out until Oracle is no longer relevant, to teach Oracle a lesson and make them pay through the nose to license their patents, or perhaps take ownership of Java in exchange for the patent license.
It violates antitrust laws. Netflix, Amazon, and other streaming video services should just sue Comcast and get it over with it.
Comcast will just claim that they have peering costs with transit of traffic that doesn't originate on their network so they can't price it the same. And they'd probably be right.
Netflix should embrace Bittorrent-style distribtion with network-closeness preferences. Keep most of the traffic inside the ISP, then go back and argue the point.
BTW, a thread I started on the bittorrent list on this in 2005.
Slashdot Mirror
We used to say "the system should function despite the presence of greedy men" and now we say "greed is good"
The term 'political sophistication' really means 'training normal people to think like psychopaths'. This is because the current political system is based on violence, so to use it successfully you have to think that way.
If no one is taxed then you have no roads, no sewage, no water, no defense, no social security or medicare, no police, no fire departments, no free schools, etc. Unless you're wealthy of course and just buy your own.
There is voluminous scholarship showing historical systems that have used other models and there are even better proposals for systems that achieve all that, and much more, for the same level of spending that the State apparatus.
For just one small example that disproves the rule, I live on a road that was a private turnpike before the State sized control in the 1870's. From a broader perspective, many feel that the notion that we will achieve societal peace and prosperity through violence and extortion is fundamental impossibility (read Gandhi for more on this).
It's a silly notion to think that we've achieved the pinnace of human societal evolution at this particular point in time. The next evolution will be something that somebody has proposed that's not the current status quo. We may or may not have those proposals in-hand in 2012, but to be informed takes independent investigation - these won't be covered in State-controlled schools.
You need to set up a bottling system on your car. If it's making CO2, you can make a tidy profit bottling it with a compressor and selling it.
The comment sounds like you never took chemistry. Perhaps you could re-phrase.
something wrong with the vaccine
There's something wrong with every vaccine - 10% or so of the people don't get a sufficient immune response to get immunity. That's why it's more useful when more people get the vaccine.
Unfortunately, some people take this as justification to use violence to vaccinate people against their will. I see far too little vaccine education in popular media venues (and the science is not taught in most schools).
I can tell you my preference with regard to whether implementation of an API is a derived work, but I have no idea what a ruling would be on it.... I don't think he *can* know. This is what this trial is going to determine. Scary.
There could be a silver lining - if the courts rule against what we'd consider the 'progress of science and the useful arts' at least our next set of licenses will account for this 'trap' and people will be forever leery of any language product license that doesn't offer such a grant. Perhaps it's even time to be proactive about it, to protect people in all jurisdictions.
I remember when I was a kid in the 70s, I used to think I might go into space myself
Elon Musk is going to retire on Mars. He'll sell you a ticket too.
By all indications he's going to do it. His cargo ship docks with the ISS in a couple weeks.
I seem to recall a recent story that he'll be selling lunar orbits for $500K in the coming decade. That might be too much for a refrigerator salesman, but for over two million Americans that's just one year's income. If just one half of one percent of those people take him up on it, that's ten thousand new astronauts, and a new launch to the moon every day for five years (assuming 5 passengers, two crew).
By contrast, government spaceflight programs get in a big huff when one rich businessman buys a seat on a trip to the ISS from the Russians.
In short, we've never been closer to realizing your dream.
Copyright, patents, and trademarks all work independently of each other.
Unless a contract ties use of one to the use of another. Such as a license. Such as the GPL.
Are you making the claim that Section 7 of GPLv2 isn't an implicit patent license?
You have a license to use the software.
Yes, and the use of the software is to compile and run the language. If you can't use the language then you can't use the software, which would be contrary to the GPL grant of use.
having the license for a particular implementation doesn't mean you can use it without patent infringement.
GPLv2 has an implicit patent grant. That was the part I blockquoted above.
Wrong, the correct answer is, "It's a trap! [skife.org]"
GPLv2 does contain an implicit patent grant. v3 makes it explicit.
The article could be correct, but it's predicting the outcome of a court case (one that would have to invalidate the implicit patent grant in v2) that hasn't been brought yet.
The TCK tests would be a separate problem.
You're talking about some software, a given implementation of the Java programming language.
yes, and if you're using this implementation or any GPLv2 compliant derivative of it you have a license to use the language, as that is the 'USE' of the implementation.
I realize that Google is making an argument for free use of the language without license - my only point is that they could have avoided the issue if they were willing to be open, and that most developers don't have to worry about this (unless they want to remain proprietary).
Java as GPL was unvailable at the time Google developed dalvik. Sun freed the code later.
That's true as of 2005, but they could have forked and merged any time after Nov. 2006, even if they didn't keep a tremendous amount of the original OpenJDK code (IIRC having some of the headers is part of the current argument).
They'd just have to re-license the Android, Inc. code under GPL and then merge it.
I suppose Oracle could have still gone after them for pre-2006 'violations' but I think it would be hard to prove much in the way of damages from that time period.
Google: Anyone can use the JPL without paying royalties, yes?
Ellison: Not sure.
The correct answer is, "of course they can, it was released under the GPLv2 which says, in part:
But ... and I think this is the rub of the case - even though anybody can use Java freely through the GPL, it's not known that Google went that route, probably to avoid having to make Android redistributable (even though it often is anyway). At least I haven't seen Google claim that Davlik etc. are derivavtive works of the GPLv2 release of Java.
So, the ability to keep Android closed when they want to must be worth more to Google than whatever they might eventually have to pay to Oracle.
The VC's were not interested in in his idea beyond the point of ensuring it was valid and had potential. They were really interested in whether HE could bring it to market.
Usually. I once had a VC look at work I was doing and then take one of the ideas to another company he was working with.
No loss to me really, I didn't have the means to execute the idea at the time, but he was still a dick about it.
In general, avoid VC's. They're there mostly to take your ideas and fire you. Though sometimes you get a decent payday in the process.
If you think it is too broad and vague, suggest something better.
Definitely make your concerns known, but watch out because even worse than broad and vague is comprehensive and precise. I once got handed a 200-page NDA/boilerplate for a sub-contracting job. It even cited other documents to refer to. It would have cost me 60% of the job's value to have an attorney review it for me.
I told the guy who was hiring about this, and he understood my point, so he spoke with his company's people, and they came back with a 3-pager and a different way of arranging the contract.
Personally, I'd prefer my pilots to take evasive action when they feel its neccessary, and not pick up a habit of second guessing themselves to avoid bad PR
Pilots second-guessing their instruments is a major cause of crashes.
But I think the bigger problem is that it sounds like Air Canada engaged in a systematic cover-up of this incident, and are only now admitting it because they were outed by the government report.
These days, my wife and I have a policy of always putting thermal paper receipts in a baggy that we keep in the freezer. The thermal paper printing does not seem to ever fade as long as the paper is kept cool.
Wow, that's both very useful to know and absolutely crazy to have to do!
the dad was thrown in prison.
Can you get us a name? Serious bit of history, assuming it's true.
2.10 IS NOT HIGHER THAN 2.9.
Take your bigotry towards alternate numeric systems elsewhere, sir!
Put a TrueCrypt partition on the drive. Encryption needs to be done at the ends; they are just providing a bit storage medium.
If the protocol is at all useful, there will be a FUSE filesystem that does efficient (small-block oriented) encrypted storage on Google Drive within a month.
The replacement policy required the original receipt... no photocopies or duplicates...
Most stores use thermal paper receipts which fade after a year or so. What would be interesting would be to send them a faded 10-year old piece of thermal paper and see what happens. :)
their guarantees are just a scam to get you buy their bulbs.
Yep.
I might be more diligent keeping the receipt and packaging with a $20 lamp, but probably not.
Fortunately for them the thermal receipt will fade after two years. Be careful of "original receipt required" clauses (sounds innocuous at first glance, right?)
absolutely zero benefit to our organization. I'm fine with running ipv4 into the ground. I just don't care anymore. I hate ipv6.
Is your organization an ISP? A multi-national corporation? If not, you jumped in too early. When it's not really expensive to get a routed IPv6 network then you should start to pay attention.
I still have no god damn idea why Oracle is doing this other than amazing short sightedness.
The conventional analysis is that Oracle needs some of Google's key database patents to be able to scale Oracle Database much beyond it's current state. They only bought Sun to get Java to clobber Google over the head with, so they'd enter into a patent-cross-licensing deal.
Presumbaly Google has this figured out and either intends to drag this out until Oracle is no longer relevant, to teach Oracle a lesson and make them pay through the nose to license their patents, or perhaps take ownership of Java in exchange for the patent license.
It violates antitrust laws. Netflix, Amazon, and other streaming video services should just sue Comcast and get it over with it.
Comcast will just claim that they have peering costs with transit of traffic that doesn't originate on their network so they can't price it the same. And they'd probably be right.
Netflix should embrace Bittorrent-style distribtion with network-closeness preferences. Keep most of the traffic inside the ISP, then go back and argue the point.
BTW, a thread I started on the bittorrent list on this in 2005.
Can't wait for the rest of it to be transparent.
âoeThat which can be destroyed by the truth should be." - P. C. Hodgell