Actually, if it worked properly, you wouldn't need Microsoft's involvement - just load Windows kernel once, and generate a kernel that can be run under another OS directly (w/o a virtual machine). IIRC someone actually proposed trying to do that for an early version of Windows (think circa Win286), and got shut down really fast.
We know that it can be done in theory... the problem is, as always, $$$.
sorry, just noticed that you do have your contract details. sorry about assuming 'gentleman', please read 'lady' throughout. I have e-mailed you the invoice.
A lot of people make that mistake... it makes for some interesting times.
Then again, if you're going to challenge assumptions, you don't want people treating you differently based solely on gender.
NET still requires a runtime. Runtimes == evil. The old tech I was referring to has no runtimes. It exercised all code paths in a file, and generated binaries for the target architecture. In other words, if you ran Word for Windows, you could generate a binary for linux or osx (of course, it never got to that stage of development, but you get the picture).
It wasn't one of those "fat binary" things - the resulting images were suitable for running only on the target arch - and it's a shame that development was stopped (copyright issues for one... seems nothing changes much).
After all, if one are not arguing from precedent, one is simply pulling facts out of one's ass.
So, Copernicus, Galileo, Harvey, Einstein, Fleming, Mendel, Darwin, etc., were pulling facts out of their rectums? Wow!
You're not, by chance, a member of the Tea Party or some other fact-free zone, are you?
Does it go well in a salad? Then it's probably a vegetable.
So, olives, macaroni, shrimp, octopus, crab, cucumbers, bacon bits, chicken breast chunks, cheese chunks, grapes, orange and apple slices, tuna fish, turkey, pineapple, salmon, salt, sausage slices, strawberries, cream cheese, croutons, and tomatoes are all vegetables? Only the worlds worst "chefs" would actually believe that.
Please, stop pulling "factoids" out of your hemorrhoids, and leave the kitchen to those who know what they're doing.
Do you have any proof that I reprooduced your post in any shape, manner or form? That I read more than just the title?
But here, let me reproduce your latest one:
"Any contract requires the agreement of both parties." That's right. And, the 'default case' is NOT that you have the right to reproduce my text (in memory and elsewhere) when I have explicitly denied this right. Go to Paris, take a photo of the Eiffel Tower at night, and publish it in a book. You must pay for this privilege. [photo.net] Where's the contract "requiring the agreement of both parties"? Did you sign one when entering France? No. The fact is, that is an absurd length France goes to, but the basic premise is that the default case is that you DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO REPRODUCE. I am making this expliict.
IN your reply you have just admited to making unauthorized reproduction of my text (in memory and elsewhere), thereby agreeing to be bound to $1. If you don't want to pay it despite your obligation, you can try to weasel your way out of it ("come sue me!") but the law is very clear. I revoked your ability to reproduce my work, except as outlined; you did it anyway. Now you owe me. One dollar. I demand you give me your contact details so I can collect.
Of course if you are not a gentleman you can steal one dollar from me by not paying. But we are not talking about what the "gentlemanly" thing to do is, but whether you owe me: you do. You seriously misunderstand copyright law if you think you need "agreement from both sides" before you can be on the hook for reproducing copyrighted material that was explicitly denied to your reproduction. I demand your contact details if you are a gentleman or honorable.
As for your "Eiffel Tower" argument, different jurisdiction, different subject matter, different rules. Apples vs. oranges arguments demonstrates the paucity of your arguments.
And no, the law is on my side in this case. Please sue me. I welcome service. Since you have sent the invoice, I will send you my address at which to serve me - btw, service must be in person, not via registered mail, for this type of lawsuit.
Precedent, when it contradicts the facts, has to bow to the facts. Otherwise, you end up with stupidity like governments trying to legislate Pi as equal to 3.
1. How do we get funding to redevelop and advance the now-long-gone run-once-save-the-image-as-a-binary tech?
2. How do we incorporate all the new capabilities such as you pointed out?
It's the funding part that's the bear - I'm sure I'm not the only one who would like to work on such advancing such technology, so the "warm bodies" problem isn't the real roadblock.
Maybe the ability to do the same with scripts such as php (and loading the resulting binaries into the server for really quick performance) would give enough $$$ energy savings to get some funding...
The only way for it to cease existing requires a legal process, which even Google (who has a lot to gain by doing this) isn't even trying to do.
You might want to try removing that rock you've been living under. The patents are being attacked by Google, both at the USPTO and in court.
As just one example, Google is arguing laches - that Oracle, as the successor to Sun, sat on their rights too long. Also, that they relied on Sun's public assurances, such as you can see here, which is an equitable defense.
Oracle has already had most if its' claims thrown out. The rest will also die, or be settled for a trivial one-time payment, since the patents for the most part are close to expiry anyway.
Basic contract law says that you are wrong. Any contract requires the agreement of both parties. Unless I explicitly agree, there is no contract, therefore any attempt to obtain money via such a ruse is fraud. You may own the comment, but you can't charge me for viewing it, or even reproducing it, unless we enter into an agreement to do so.
Now, if you really want to try it, you can get my real name and email address from my user profile. Then you can send me an invoice. Then, when I ignore it, you can try to sue me.
Or is that too complicated?
Now please, stop with the stupidity. If you're going to troll, at least make a half-hearted attempt to do it right.
"Fruit" is definitely used in the botanical sciences to have a specific meaning, and tomatoes are fruits, not just "vegetable matter." Your attempt at being overly pedantic failed, but it was a nice try. Still, I give it a -1.
Also the distinction between peanuts and real nuts is important in the kitchen, because so many people mistakenly want to avoid contact with peanuts because of an allergy to nuts, when peanuts are definitely NOT nuts. They are two distinct allergies, though they are often present in the same individual. BTW - science has uses in the kitchen - cooking is applied chemistry, last time I looked.
Enterprise has never been (and I'll argue, shouldn't be) a focus of ours. Until we run out of people who don't have sysadmins and enterprise deployment teams looking out for them, I can't imagine why we'd focus at all on the kinds of environments you care so much about.
1. Small business is the biggest employer. Small business doesn't have sysadmins and enterprise deployment teams looking out for them, but they still need to interact with enterprise systems if they want to stay in business.
2. People tend to use what they use at work at home. Ignoring the enterprise market is dumb, because it leaves all those users out in the cold as well.
His remark was stupid, ill-considered, dumb, whatever... just like removing the status bar rather than making it optional, and a bunch of other "me-too" "innovations."
I'm looking for another browser. Firefox has peaked, and is now dying. It was a good run, but ultimately, we've been betrayed.
I am, however, just relaying facts as they are, and you are getting all pedantic and trying to split hairs and ultimately it makes no difference because, again, you clearly don't know what you are talking about. As stated above, botanically speaking tomatoes are, yes, fruits because of their biological function. However, completely separate from that issue and backed up by centuries of tradition (and the fact that they taste fucking disgusting in a pie) is the fact that any chef worth his salt - hell, anybody who has any clue how to find his way around a kitchen - would know better than to conflate the biological function with a part of a plant with its proper usage in a dish.
You really want to use tradition as your main argument that tomatoes are not a fruit?
Anyone with two spare brain cells knows that tradition can often be seriously wrong. Tradition says treat frostbite by rubbing the affected body parts with snow - totally wrong. Just like tradition had people rubbing burns with butter, burning women who were too smart as witches, bleeding people to "release the bad humours that ailed them", drinking turpentine to "cure" other ailments, associating the full moon as the cause of lunacy, and not allowing women to be educated because our place is in the kitchen.
But let's take a closer look at the stupidest assertion you made - that tomatoes "taste disgusting in a pie." Again, you let tradition cloud your thinking, and seeing the obvious - pizza pies taste great in large part due to tomatoes (and the occasional pineapple - another fruit, btw). Or are you going to argue now that pizza pie is not a pie? It meets the definition of a single-crust pie. Or will you now also want to exclude steak and kidney pie, pork pie, fish pie, chicken pot pie, and a whole assortment of quiches, just because they don't meet your definition of a pie?
As for tomatoes in desserts, a quick search would have turned up plenty of results, including this - mentions of tomato shortcake and tomato sorbet, among other things.
What next? Claiming that carrot cake can't be a dessert because it includes a vegetable?
Don't be so ethnocentric with your traditions. It's wrong. Tomatoes are fruits, and continuing to argue otherwise when science says otherwise, on a tech site, makes you look like a nutbar
And if someone did what you proposed, you'd be guilty of fraud.
I emailed one development house today for having that stupid "if you nevertheless choose to send any creative material or any other information to Behaviour, you agree that it shall be deemed and shall remain the property of Behaviour."
Ownership of copyrighted material is by written contract only, and any other attempt to gain ownership is fraud, same as your attempt to get a buck out of people by claiming that reading a post creates a contractual relationship is also fraud.
Now I know you're not serious about it, but really, can't you be more original in your trolling, Mr. A.C.?
1. Using the NULL character allows for strings more than 255 bytes long;
2. Using the NULL character makes it quicker to append strings (strcat) - no need to update the length byte(s);
3. Using the NULL character saves more than 1 byte when you change architectures, and you don't have to worry about byte-padding when calculating storage;
4. You don't have different types of strings with different maximum lengths (255 bytes, 64k bytes, etc.) and code to deal with interfacing between the types.
Or run 1,000 of them on the lunar surface (a lot closer, a lot cheaper), charging people to operate them along their designated mission profiles.
It could be like a big online game, with a leaderboard, credits for school, etc. Self-supporting, it would not only explore a lot of the lunar surface, but give preparation for repeating the whole thing with Mars a few years later.
Just because Reagan tried to claim ketchup was a vegetable to make it look like the feds were doing better than they were with the nutritional standards of school lunch programs doesn't make it so.
In a way I hope they succeed - because then we'll see the revival of the really old tech - the stuff that allowed you to, at runtime, compile the whole app to a different architecture and run it, while saving the complete image. No more JIT stupidity, no more problems with "Windows-only" software. JIT is lame in comparison.
Think of it - the.class files only get loaded once on your machine, and you have a native binary forever that you can distribute to other machines of the same architecture, including those who don't have the runtime. True write-once, run-anywhere. We could do it 30 years ago, before we abandoned the technology, and there's no reason why we can't re-do it today (except for vendor lock-in, which is big in the mobile java space, and why Oracle is pulling this crap, trying to preserve their thousand different incompatible versions of Java on the phone with their LICENCE_TO_PRINT_$$$).
I would *LOVE* to work on reviving that sort of tech. Think of the environmental impact in terms of saving energy that not having to run a JIT would have (not to mention the longer battery life in mobile applications).
And this is not new... and wasn't new 20 years ago. The patent is like so many software patents, doubly bogus.
"Execution of the native machine instructions may be accomplished by overwriting a virtual machine instruction of the function with a virtual machine instruction that specifies execution of the native machine instructions." Wow, they patented inserting a JMP to an alternate address to execute code. Viruses are prior art, but the patent subject matter itself is EXTREMELY trivial, and as such not patentable.
1. Ellison was a director of Apple for a while after Jobs returned.
2. Jobs was the official wedding photographer at Ellison's wedding.
3. "Steve Jobs is my best friend" - Ellison.
So yes, Ellison is quite happy to throw a monkey wrench into Google's gears - aligning with Google instead would have meant going after his best friend.
ALL JITs interpret... some (nowadays almost all) cache a copy of the result, to fetch again later.
One of the patents in question: "A portion of the virtual machine instructions of the function are compiled into native machine instructions so that the function includes both virtual and native machine instructions."
Nothing about caching for later use. This is the way that even the old BASIC interpreters worked.
All modern cpus do JIT - it's been ages since the instruction set was burned into the cpu instead of in microcode, and then there's the out-of-order and take-both-branches execution, etc. JIT patents? When the concept has been around in one form or another for decades? They'd have to be very limited patents, covering specific instances rather than the concept of a JIT, and therefore, too limited to apply to dalvik.
Again, stop with the lies. Google had been in talks with Sun to come to some sort of agreement - there was never an admission of infringement. Also, dalvik does not run java code, and there's absolutely nothing in copyright law that says you can't cross-compile. And there's no patent infringement in the device if you cross-compile, because the device is not using the original java class files.
It's the same as if you use Word to write up a document, then import it into OpenOffice, and distribute the resulting odt file. End users do not need Word, and the end user devices are not guilty of infringing Word.
The Oracle java on dalvik is a lie, simply because dalvik doesn't run java and never did. Ellison is just propping up his buddy Jobs and being his usual pr*ck self.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, if it worked properly, you wouldn't need Microsoft's involvement - just load Windows kernel once, and generate a kernel that can be run under another OS directly (w/o a virtual machine). IIRC someone actually proposed trying to do that for an early version of Windows (think circa Win286), and got shut down really fast.
We know that it can be done in theory ... the problem is, as always, $$$.
A lot of people make that mistake ... it makes for some interesting times.
Then again, if you're going to challenge assumptions, you don't want people treating you differently based solely on gender.
NET still requires a runtime. Runtimes == evil. The old tech I was referring to has no runtimes. It exercised all code paths in a file, and generated binaries for the target architecture. In other words, if you ran Word for Windows, you could generate a binary for linux or osx (of course, it never got to that stage of development, but you get the picture).
It wasn't one of those "fat binary" things - the resulting images were suitable for running only on the target arch - and it's a shame that development was stopped (copyright issues for one ... seems nothing changes much).
So, Copernicus, Galileo, Harvey, Einstein, Fleming, Mendel, Darwin, etc., were pulling facts out of their rectums? Wow!
You're not, by chance, a member of the Tea Party or some other fact-free zone, are you?
So, olives, macaroni, shrimp, octopus, crab, cucumbers, bacon bits, chicken breast chunks, cheese chunks, grapes, orange and apple slices, tuna fish, turkey, pineapple, salmon, salt, sausage slices, strawberries, cream cheese, croutons, and tomatoes are all vegetables? Only the worlds worst "chefs" would actually believe that.
Please, stop pulling "factoids" out of your hemorrhoids, and leave the kitchen to those who know what they're doing.
But here, let me reproduce your latest one:
As for your "Eiffel Tower" argument, different jurisdiction, different subject matter, different rules. Apples vs. oranges arguments demonstrates the paucity of your arguments.
And no, the law is on my side in this case. Please sue me. I welcome service. Since you have sent the invoice, I will send you my address at which to serve me - btw, service must be in person, not via registered mail, for this type of lawsuit.
Precedent, when it contradicts the facts, has to bow to the facts. Otherwise, you end up with stupidity like governments trying to legislate Pi as equal to 3.
Or do you still cling to the world being flat?
-- barbara
So the real questions are:
1. How do we get funding to redevelop and advance the now-long-gone run-once-save-the-image-as-a-binary tech?
2. How do we incorporate all the new capabilities such as you pointed out?
It's the funding part that's the bear - I'm sure I'm not the only one who would like to work on such advancing such technology, so the "warm bodies" problem isn't the real roadblock.
Maybe the ability to do the same with scripts such as php (and loading the resulting binaries into the server for really quick performance) would give enough $$$ energy savings to get some funding ...
You might want to try removing that rock you've been living under. The patents are being attacked by Google, both at the USPTO and in court.
As just one example, Google is arguing laches - that Oracle, as the successor to Sun, sat on their rights too long. Also, that they relied on Sun's public assurances, such as you can see here, which is an equitable defense.
Oracle has already had most if its' claims thrown out. The rest will also die, or be settled for a trivial one-time payment, since the patents for the most part are close to expiry anyway.
Now, if you really want to try it, you can get my real name and email address from my user profile. Then you can send me an invoice. Then, when I ignore it, you can try to sue me.
Or is that too complicated?
Now please, stop with the stupidity. If you're going to troll, at least make a half-hearted attempt to do it right.
Also the distinction between peanuts and real nuts is important in the kitchen, because so many people mistakenly want to avoid contact with peanuts because of an allergy to nuts, when peanuts are definitely NOT nuts. They are two distinct allergies, though they are often present in the same individual. BTW - science has uses in the kitchen - cooking is applied chemistry, last time I looked.
-- barbara
1. Small business is the biggest employer. Small business doesn't have sysadmins and enterprise deployment teams looking out for them, but they still need to interact with enterprise systems if they want to stay in business.
2. People tend to use what they use at work at home. Ignoring the enterprise market is dumb, because it leaves all those users out in the cold as well.
His remark was stupid, ill-considered, dumb, whatever ... just like removing the status bar rather than making it optional, and a bunch of other "me-too" "innovations."
I'm looking for another browser. Firefox has peaked, and is now dying. It was a good run, but ultimately, we've been betrayed.
You really want to use tradition as your main argument that tomatoes are not a fruit?
Anyone with two spare brain cells knows that tradition can often be seriously wrong. Tradition says treat frostbite by rubbing the affected body parts with snow - totally wrong. Just like tradition had people rubbing burns with butter, burning women who were too smart as witches, bleeding people to "release the bad humours that ailed them", drinking turpentine to "cure" other ailments, associating the full moon as the cause of lunacy, and not allowing women to be educated because our place is in the kitchen.
But let's take a closer look at the stupidest assertion you made - that tomatoes "taste disgusting in a pie." Again, you let tradition cloud your thinking, and seeing the obvious - pizza pies taste great in large part due to tomatoes (and the occasional pineapple - another fruit, btw). Or are you going to argue now that pizza pie is not a pie? It meets the definition of a single-crust pie. Or will you now also want to exclude steak and kidney pie, pork pie, fish pie, chicken pot pie, and a whole assortment of quiches, just because they don't meet your definition of a pie?
As for tomatoes in desserts, a quick search would have turned up plenty of results, including this - mentions of tomato shortcake and tomato sorbet, among other things.
What next? Claiming that carrot cake can't be a dessert because it includes a vegetable?
Don't be so ethnocentric with your traditions. It's wrong. Tomatoes are fruits, and continuing to argue otherwise when science says otherwise, on a tech site, makes you look like a nutbar
-- barbara
And if someone did what you proposed, you'd be guilty of fraud.
I emailed one development house today for having that stupid "if you nevertheless choose to send any creative material or any other information to Behaviour, you agree that it shall be deemed and shall remain the property of Behaviour."
Ownership of copyrighted material is by written contract only, and any other attempt to gain ownership is fraud, same as your attempt to get a buck out of people by claiming that reading a post creates a contractual relationship is also fraud.
Now I know you're not serious about it, but really, can't you be more original in your trolling, Mr. A.C.?
So, since lemons and limes are sour-tasting, they are not, culinarily speaking, fruits?
How about grapefruit, which is a bit of both?
Or tart-tasting apples? Crab-apples sure are fruit, but they will certainly make you pucker.
Tomatoes are fruits. Perceived sweetness has nothing to do with whether something is considered a fruit, neither in the lab nor the kitchen.
Next you'll be saying that peanuts are nuts.
1. Using the NULL character allows for strings more than 255 bytes long;
2. Using the NULL character makes it quicker to append strings (strcat) - no need to update the length byte(s);
3. Using the NULL character saves more than 1 byte when you change architectures, and you don't have to worry about byte-padding when calculating storage;
4. You don't have different types of strings with different maximum lengths (255 bytes, 64k bytes, etc.) and code to deal with interfacing between the types.
IOW, the article's claim is wrong.
It could be like a big online game, with a leaderboard, credits for school, etc. Self-supporting, it would not only explore a lot of the lunar surface, but give preparation for repeating the whole thing with Mars a few years later.
Tomatoes are fruits, you fruitcake! :-)
Just because Reagan tried to claim ketchup was a vegetable to make it look like the feds were doing better than they were with the nutritional standards of school lunch programs doesn't make it so.
In a way I hope they succeed - because then we'll see the revival of the really old tech - the stuff that allowed you to, at runtime, compile the whole app to a different architecture and run it, while saving the complete image. No more JIT stupidity, no more problems with "Windows-only" software. JIT is lame in comparison.
Think of it - the .class files only get loaded once on your machine, and you have a native binary forever that you can distribute to other machines of the same architecture, including those who don't have the runtime. True write-once, run-anywhere. We could do it 30 years ago, before we abandoned the technology, and there's no reason why we can't re-do it today (except for vendor lock-in, which is big in the mobile java space, and why Oracle is pulling this crap, trying to preserve their thousand different incompatible versions of Java on the phone with their LICENCE_TO_PRINT_$$$).
I would *LOVE* to work on reviving that sort of tech. Think of the environmental impact in terms of saving energy that not having to run a JIT would have (not to mention the longer battery life in mobile applications).
"Execution of the native machine instructions may be accomplished by overwriting a virtual machine instruction of the function with a virtual machine instruction that specifies execution of the native machine instructions." Wow, they patented inserting a JMP to an alternate address to execute code. Viruses are prior art, but the patent subject matter itself is EXTREMELY trivial, and as such not patentable.
Before:
Updated version:
1. Ellison was a director of Apple for a while after Jobs returned.
2. Jobs was the official wedding photographer at Ellison's wedding.
3. "Steve Jobs is my best friend" - Ellison.
So yes, Ellison is quite happy to throw a monkey wrench into Google's gears - aligning with Google instead would have meant going after his best friend.
One of the patents in question: "A portion of the virtual machine instructions of the function are compiled into native machine instructions so that the function includes both virtual and native machine instructions."
Nothing about caching for later use. This is the way that even the old BASIC interpreters worked.
Verdict: Bogus patent.
Or you could try this.
... and that's a BIG if.
All modern cpus do JIT - it's been ages since the instruction set was burned into the cpu instead of in microcode, and then there's the out-of-order and take-both-branches execution, etc. JIT patents? When the concept has been around in one form or another for decades? They'd have to be very limited patents, covering specific instances rather than the concept of a JIT, and therefore, too limited to apply to dalvik.
Again, stop with the lies. Google had been in talks with Sun to come to some sort of agreement - there was never an admission of infringement. Also, dalvik does not run java code, and there's absolutely nothing in copyright law that says you can't cross-compile. And there's no patent infringement in the device if you cross-compile, because the device is not using the original java class files.
It's the same as if you use Word to write up a document, then import it into OpenOffice, and distribute the resulting odt file. End users do not need Word, and the end user devices are not guilty of infringing Word.
The Oracle java on dalvik is a lie, simply because dalvik doesn't run java and never did. Ellison is just propping up his buddy Jobs and being his usual pr*ck self.
Because logged-in users post at 1 or 2 (depending on karma bonus), not 0.