Well... outside of school, we'd sometimes get a small army of kids together and play a game colloquially known as "smear the queer," but that's a different matter.
1) Just like Microsoft did back in the 90s (emphasis mine):
An important distinction here is that Microsoft did purchase a Java license from Sun. So Sun definitely had a case that Microsoft violated the explicit terms of the specific contract it had with Sun.
Google, on the other hand, did not have a license from Oracle because it could not obtain one. The only license that applies here is Oracle's stated public grant of a license to implement the JDK. It seems to me that whether that license was being fairly and faithfully applied is an important legal matter here. If Oracle says "everybody can use Java, but only if you do this, this, and this, and we won't let certain parties do the last one," is that defensible?
I used to believe the way you do, BTW. When the lawsuit was first announced, I wrote an editorial called "Why Oracle was right to sue Google." But as the issues in the case have emerged and a lot of Oracle's original claims have been whittled away, I've started to see it the other way.
I do believe that Google's choice to go with Java as its main language may prove to be a mistake, though. I think it made that decision out of a desire to move quickly against Apple, but it did it in a kinda sneaky way and it ended up getting bitten. How badly remains to be seen.
2) You're talking about the Java SE license, which has nothing to do with the Google case.
I'm talking about the license text you quoted. If it has nothing to do with the Google case, why did you quote it? Go back and read the last line of the section you cut and pasted. It says TCK required. Oracle denied the Apache Foundation access to the TCK. Bad faith.
In high school gym, we'd sometimes play flag football, or touch football. No tackling, no slamming into people. Sometimes you'd fall down. It was fun. And pretty safe.
Look, in Roman times, people used to die building the aqueducts... that doesn't mean we accept deaths when companies build dams to service communities. We have technology, engineering, medicine, etc to help us be better than that.
The trouble is, if these doctors are right, it doesn't sound like there's anything technology or engineering is going to do about it. The players already wear the most advanced helmets in sports. But no helmet is going to prevent your brain from smashing into the inside of your skull when your head experiences a sudden deceleration. It sounds like the only thing to do is to change the way the game is played. The problem there is that the NFL rules seem to change all the time, not for the benefit of the players, but so that the NFL can maximize profits from the games. They've been engineering game play with that goal in mind for years. They're not going to want to change the game now because the players get hurt.
The same should be done with soccer, where kids "header" the ball.
Ahhhh, now you're reaching. Young kids don't head the ball that much, and a ball is highly unlikely to cause a concussion. Neck injuries, now that's possible -- but I've known people who broke their ankles tripping on the sidewalk, too. If you use your body, eventually you will get injured somehow. The only option is to stay in bed. You don't, however, have to crash head-first into a 250lb armored football player at a full run, however. That's a little different.
In other words, Oracle claim that Google created a Java-based platform that is not compatible with Java, and called it Java.
Except for two things:
1. Google doesn't say their OS runs Java. It says you write apps for Android in the Java language, which Oracle is still insisting is "free for anyone to use" -- just apparently not for Google to use. Google has never said that Android is an implementation of the Java platform, however, which is what Google licenses.
2.A large part of Google's "Java-based platform" is derived from Apache Harmony. To be in compliance with the Java license terms you quote, an implementation must pass the TCK. As we all know, Oracle has refused to grant the Apache Foundation access to the TCK, except under terms that would violate the Apache open source license. So it's a little disingenuous to say Google violated the license, when Oracle specifically wouldn't allow Apache (or Google) to comply with the license.
So IMHO it's still largely Oracle's acting in bad faith that led to this pass.
I guess the telling part is that Java is supposed to be a language that's "write once, run anywhere," but in reality Java developers can't be certain that a substantial Java library from Oracle itself will even compile or run on any particular platform. Turns out it did this time.
If the API itself is copyrighted, then it could mean that any source code that links to a library that implements the copyrighted API is a derivative work. It could also mean that any non-Oracle JRE is illegitimate, yes. These are issues currently being hammered out in the courts.
It seems clear that Oracle is attempting an end-run around the whole concept of open source Java. It may succeed. If it doesn't, that also leaves a lot of open questions.
MS: "We would like to bid on this project" govt: "No you cant, it must be SUN" or "no you must be ???" I can't even remember what the it was called, that is how truly relative it was, not relative then, forgotten about now. oh yeah, POSIX. Anyone even remember it?
You're joking (or trolling), surely. But if people at Microsoft really do think this way, it certainly would explain a lot.
Has anyone actually looked at that site? Holy crap, that's all I can say. I'm floored. It has all the appeal to a longtime/. reader of a piece of dog shit on your shoe. I'm having a hard time understanding how it even came to exist. I'm actually really depressed now.
Nook's future is uncertain because it's still heavily tied to B&N
No it isn't. Seriously. When you have a Nook, for various reasons it's advantageous to do business with B&N, but "heavily tied"? No. Not like the Kindle is heavily tied to Amazon.
Tell you the little Hollywood secret, they HATE this. If the rubicon of 24fps & 2D is crossed, the film industry and all their flicks will be stamped as outdated '70s era films, similar to mono audio recordings once the stereo era kicked in.
Why would they hate that? Hollywood doesn't make its money trotting out old prints of old movies to repertory theaters. They make it on new releases. If their old movies don't hold up to modern technology, all the more reason to remake them.
So the book presents a hypothetical derivatives salesman (who doesn't exist), says he used to read Time but now he reads Guns and Ammo, and offers that it's no coincidence. Of course it's no coincidence; the same author made it all up! I do think there's lots wrong with Wall Street, but your book sounds like a bunch of sensationalist junk, frankly.
It's worth pointing out that the "Nobel Prize in Economics" was not one of the original six prizes founded by Alfred Nobel. It is a separate award, which was invented by the Swedish central bank in 1968. Although it is presented along with the Nobel prizes, it is not technically a Nobel itself.
Bug bounties are kind of a prisoners dilemma: If you discover a bug, you can sell A) it to malicious companies and make some money on the black market or B) admit the bug to the company.
Kind of. But this "dilemma" presupposes a purely amoral participant. Most people aren't amoral (or sociopathic) to begin with, and once there's real money behind doing the right thing, I doubt most people would go the other way.
Slashdot Mirror
Well... outside of school, we'd sometimes get a small army of kids together and play a game colloquially known as "smear the queer," but that's a different matter.
Nah, it's the kind where you can get it up in a real hurry but it has serious performance problems.
Sorry to reply twice, but ...
1) Just like Microsoft did back in the 90s (emphasis mine):
An important distinction here is that Microsoft did purchase a Java license from Sun. So Sun definitely had a case that Microsoft violated the explicit terms of the specific contract it had with Sun.
Google, on the other hand, did not have a license from Oracle because it could not obtain one. The only license that applies here is Oracle's stated public grant of a license to implement the JDK. It seems to me that whether that license was being fairly and faithfully applied is an important legal matter here. If Oracle says "everybody can use Java, but only if you do this, this, and this, and we won't let certain parties do the last one," is that defensible?
I used to believe the way you do, BTW. When the lawsuit was first announced, I wrote an editorial called "Why Oracle was right to sue Google." But as the issues in the case have emerged and a lot of Oracle's original claims have been whittled away, I've started to see it the other way.
I do believe that Google's choice to go with Java as its main language may prove to be a mistake, though. I think it made that decision out of a desire to move quickly against Apple, but it did it in a kinda sneaky way and it ended up getting bitten. How badly remains to be seen.
2) You're talking about the Java SE license, which has nothing to do with the Google case.
I'm talking about the license text you quoted. If it has nothing to do with the Google case, why did you quote it? Go back and read the last line of the section you cut and pasted. It says TCK required. Oracle denied the Apache Foundation access to the TCK. Bad faith.
Well, nah, apparently not really.
In high school gym, we'd sometimes play flag football, or touch football. No tackling, no slamming into people. Sometimes you'd fall down. It was fun. And pretty safe.
Look, in Roman times, people used to die building the aqueducts ... that doesn't mean we accept deaths when companies build dams to service communities. We have technology, engineering, medicine, etc to help us be better than that.
The trouble is, if these doctors are right, it doesn't sound like there's anything technology or engineering is going to do about it. The players already wear the most advanced helmets in sports. But no helmet is going to prevent your brain from smashing into the inside of your skull when your head experiences a sudden deceleration. It sounds like the only thing to do is to change the way the game is played. The problem there is that the NFL rules seem to change all the time, not for the benefit of the players, but so that the NFL can maximize profits from the games. They've been engineering game play with that goal in mind for years. They're not going to want to change the game now because the players get hurt.
The same should be done with soccer, where kids "header" the ball.
Ahhhh, now you're reaching. Young kids don't head the ball that much, and a ball is highly unlikely to cause a concussion. Neck injuries, now that's possible -- but I've known people who broke their ankles tripping on the sidewalk, too. If you use your body, eventually you will get injured somehow. The only option is to stay in bed. You don't, however, have to crash head-first into a 250lb armored football player at a full run, however. That's a little different.
In other words, Oracle claim that Google created a Java-based platform that is not compatible with Java, and called it Java.
Except for two things:
1. Google doesn't say their OS runs Java. It says you write apps for Android in the Java language, which Oracle is still insisting is "free for anyone to use" -- just apparently not for Google to use. Google has never said that Android is an implementation of the Java platform, however, which is what Google licenses.
2.A large part of Google's "Java-based platform" is derived from Apache Harmony. To be in compliance with the Java license terms you quote, an implementation must pass the TCK. As we all know, Oracle has refused to grant the Apache Foundation access to the TCK, except under terms that would violate the Apache open source license. So it's a little disingenuous to say Google violated the license, when Oracle specifically wouldn't allow Apache (or Google) to comply with the license.
So IMHO it's still largely Oracle's acting in bad faith that led to this pass.
I guess the telling part is that Java is supposed to be a language that's "write once, run anywhere," but in reality Java developers can't be certain that a substantial Java library from Oracle itself will even compile or run on any particular platform. Turns out it did this time.
If the API itself is copyrighted, then it could mean that any source code that links to a library that implements the copyrighted API is a derivative work. It could also mean that any non-Oracle JRE is illegitimate, yes. These are issues currently being hammered out in the courts.
It seems clear that Oracle is attempting an end-run around the whole concept of open source Java. It may succeed. If it doesn't, that also leaves a lot of open questions.
MS: "We would like to bid on this project" govt: "No you cant, it must be SUN" or "no you must be ???" I can't even remember what the it was called, that is how truly relative it was, not relative then, forgotten about now. oh yeah, POSIX. Anyone even remember it?
You're joking (or trolling), surely. But if people at Microsoft really do think this way, it certainly would explain a lot.
Go to your corner.
They're reviving it as a Kickstarter project.
May I suggest El Reg? They post a good mix of tech, science, and fun stories and I've been impressed with the quality of their message boards overall.
Has anyone actually looked at that site? Holy crap, that's all I can say. I'm floored. It has all the appeal to a longtime /. reader of a piece of dog shit on your shoe. I'm having a hard time understanding how it even came to exist. I'm actually really depressed now.
Amazon's Kindle uses linux. I'll stick with that.
Nook e-readers are Android, so they use Linux, too. I don't see anything in this announcement to suggest that's likely to change.
Nook's future is uncertain because it's still heavily tied to B&N
No it isn't. Seriously. When you have a Nook, for various reasons it's advantageous to do business with B&N, but "heavily tied"? No. Not like the Kindle is heavily tied to Amazon.
but you generally don't have to since almost all ebooks are available direct from Amazon whereas only a fraction are available from B&N.
What are you basing this on? I've never found an e-book on Amazon that I couldn't buy through B&N, and in fact I've found the opposite situation.
Tell you the little Hollywood secret, they HATE this. If the rubicon of 24fps & 2D is crossed, the film industry and all their flicks will be stamped as outdated '70s era films, similar to mono audio recordings once the stereo era kicked in.
Why would they hate that? Hollywood doesn't make its money trotting out old prints of old movies to repertory theaters. They make it on new releases. If their old movies don't hold up to modern technology, all the more reason to remake them.
He's right, though. Stories about fraudulent loan applications are so common that if you haven't read any, you must not read the news.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aN2DPRuRs93M
So the book presents a hypothetical derivatives salesman (who doesn't exist), says he used to read Time but now he reads Guns and Ammo, and offers that it's no coincidence. Of course it's no coincidence; the same author made it all up! I do think there's lots wrong with Wall Street, but your book sounds like a bunch of sensationalist junk, frankly.
Posts like this one make me think the /. coders should come up with an "Autism spectrum" filter for posts. Dial it to where you need it.
It's worth pointing out that the "Nobel Prize in Economics" was not one of the original six prizes founded by Alfred Nobel. It is a separate award, which was invented by the Swedish central bank in 1968. Although it is presented along with the Nobel prizes, it is not technically a Nobel itself.
Bug bounties are kind of a prisoners dilemma: If you discover a bug, you can sell A) it to malicious companies and make some money on the black market or B) admit the bug to the company.
Kind of. But this "dilemma" presupposes a purely amoral participant. Most people aren't amoral (or sociopathic) to begin with, and once there's real money behind doing the right thing, I doubt most people would go the other way.