Applying names to things is a first step in understanding them. We have very strong evidence that something causes gravitational effects and doesn't interact in other ways we could detect. We call it dark matter, because it's more scientific-sounding than calling it Fred. It's got gravity, and that's characteristic of some form of matter. We really don't know much about it, but giving it a name means we can more easily list what we know and what we don't know, speculate on other properties it might have, etc.
Lots of accepted science started as placeholders for things we couldn't explain otherwise. Then we learned more about them.
Dark matter is matter that can't be detected by electromagnetic means. I'm not dark matter, since if you come over to me and shine a light on me you can see me with photons, which are electromagnetic. Non-luminous normal matter does interact electronically, and we can see it by its effects. It can block light, or diffuse light. We know how to detect matter like that, and so we know that dark matter isn't like that.
Why isn't it testable? We've made predictions based on the assumption of dark matter and verified them. That makes it a testable hypothesis.
We've got something similar to dark matter: neutrinos. Dark matter as we perceive it isn't neutrinos, but it shares some of the properties. It's a reasonable extension from something we already know.
The other theories to explain rotational speeds don't account for other things dark matter does. It was first hypothesized as a solution to galactic rotation, as I remember, but there's been plenty of other confirmation coming in. Something we can't detect by other means is creating gravitational fields.
Nope. You're missing the difference. I've seen no evidence that Damore would have been fired if he'd just posted his essay where it belonged. He wasn't fired because of his views. Look up the Labor Relations board findings.
Damore was pushing his essay on other employees, who weren't interested. He pushed it on people who were made uncomfortable by it. At that point, he was creating a disturbance, and got fired for it. His actual ideas don't matter in that. I'm sure that, if I were to repeatedly push an ideological statement on people here, no matter what the ideology, I'd face consequences.
It's a definition I've seen in common use around here. It's more useful than the older definition. Being more of a descriptivist than a prescriptivist linguist does not make me a liar, and I haven't accused anyone else of being a liar. Sanders is a Social Democrat by your definition. Social Democratic countries uniformly have capitalism and a free market.
Okay, you've demonstrated that you don't understand what I'm saying.
I'm not particularly ideological. I'm not all that naive. I believe that there is no perfect system. I'm perfectly aware that attempts at actual Socialist governments have been bloody authoritarian failures. I don't espouse Communist ideals. I'm not going to incredible lengths to justify any system. I don't try to make excuses for the Gulag system, or even for the less horrible stuff the US does.
What I want is a free market capitalist economy, regulated to prevent abuses and to internalize externalities, and certain social programs, which are common in many democratic countries with high happiness ratings. There's a difference. I'm a Social Democrat by your terms, as far as I can tell.
The data on the Uber cars suggest they're a lot less safe than Waymo cars. Assuming a government will allow self-driving cars, it's reasonable to look at which ones look safe enough.
Damages don't necessarily apply. No amount of money will bring back the victim of the last Uber accident. We don't want rich people and well-funded corporations to go out and kill people.
The compatibility test is for what you can do. If you want to write a general Java program, and run it, you can't do that without using the published APIs. It's a matter of functional necessity. If you don't intend to run a Java program on a standard implementation, then you can use any other API available, so you aren't forced to use the standard Java JVM and libraries. If it's necessary to accomplish something, it's fair use. If it's for convenience, it isn't.
Satire, in the US, is fair use. Dalvik was not intended nor presented as a parody of the JVM.
I'm restating Oracle's claim from the lawsuit earlier If Google can show that a ton of existing code was intended to run on Android, they should win the lawsuit.
Mono.NET is, IIRC, explicitly allowed to copy Microsoft due to Microsoft's issuing a legally binding promise. WINE might be a better example. BTW, wasn't Mono.NET designed to offer compatibility between Windows and other environments for programs, among other things?
You've never dealt with an asshole in your life? Sometimes assholes have something you need or really want, so you go through with it and complain to your friends afterward.
If you're selling something in public, there are reasons you can't legally deny a sale. You have to sell to blacks and whites and men and women and other protected classes. You don't have to sell to a specific person, although if it comes out that you never deal with blacks you're going to be in trouble.
This isn't abuse of their software by others. This is Facebook fulfilling an illegal request (or looks like it; IANAL, and I'm going to wait for a judicial ruling).
Using APIs for compatibility purposes isn't against copyright law, and I believe nobody in the case is saying anything different. You use Java APIs when you write a Java program, since you want it to run on existing Java implementations, and when you write a Java implementation, since you want existing programs to run on it.
You mention the WIndows APIs for WINE. WINE exists to run existing Windows programs, so it uses the API because it has to be compatible. That's legal.
Now, suppose I find documentation for a proprietary program, and use the overall design, replicating the internal APIs. I've then infringed on the original copyright. I have to do my own overall design. I didn't have to use that, since I had to write a new program to be legal, and I can't use too many things from the old one. This has been tested in the court system.
Oracle claims that Google didn't intend Android Java programs to run on existing Java implementations, or Dalvik etc. to run existing Java programs. That's more like the situation in the paragraph above.
APIs are not necessarily merely functional. Putting together a good API for anything complex requires judgment, and hence creativity. Given the need to express particular functionality, different architects will come out with different APIs. Creative works can be mostly functional, since the amount of creativity involved is small.
However, in order to write a Java program, you need to use the APIs. Copyright law is not intended to prevent anyone from doing anything other than limit copying in various forms, so using APIs in that way is legally OK.
Everybody agrees that using APIs for compatibility purposes is fair use. Therefore, it's fair use when writing Java programs to run on an existing JVM, and it's fair use when writing a new JVM that will run existing code. This covers almost all cases, and (as far as I can tell) all important cases. People can keep writing Java programs and JVMs.
According to copyright law, it's clear that APIs are copyrighted. They're creative, and they're in fixed form. Therefore, the only legal ways to use an API is to be the copyright holder, have a license, or fair use. Fair use covers all cases we're really interested in.
Oracle's claim is that Google's use of the API is not for compatibility. The claim is that Google's JVM (Dalvik) is not intended to run standard Java programs, and Java programs written for Android are not intended to run on other systems. Therefore, Google picked Java as the main Android programming language because it was familiar to programmers, not to be compatible with any existing software. Google could have picked any language, or invented one, without loss of compatibility. Therefore, they used Java and (more importantly) Java APIs merely to make Android programming more attractive.
I'm not speculating on whether Oracle's claim is true or not. However, it doesn't cover the cases where using APIs is necessary. If Oracle wins this, approximately nothing changes and there are no additional problems for software developers (except everyone involved in Java on the Android).
The adaptive cruise control on my car works just fine in every situation I've tried it in, but I'll still hit the brake when a failure of the system might result in a crash. You don't have to assume the car will do the right thing. Just have it signal somehow (like starting to brake before it's too late).
My car is often found in the parking lot at work during the daytime, but normally is at my house at night, where I can put it into a standard location. (This does not apply for people without reserved off-street parking, of course.)
I agree. Consider peak demand. Power companies have to build lots of excess capacity to cover it. It there was a feasible storage system, they could avoid a lot of expensive construction and operation and save a lot of money.
We've got the incentive. We don't have the storage. There's a conclusion there.
Global temperatures have not significantly risen over the past nearly 2 decades.
Depends on what you're looking at. 1998 was a very hot year. Next year, it won't be the case that there hasn't been that much warming in 20 years, as 1999 was a more normal year. Look at any sort of smoothed average, and it's clear we've been warming up.
Global warming is going to have a disproportionate effect on the poor, worldwide. Keeping energy prices low at the cost of lots more CO2 is not a good deal for them.
Burning wood is carbon-neutral. The trees get the carbon out of atmospheric CO2, it gets burned into CO2 again, and there's no net change in the amount of carbon in the cycle.
Depends on what you mean by "highly radioactive". Radium is normally considered dangerous, and it's got a half-life of something like 1600 years. On the other hand, that cesium isotope we had problems with after Fukushima has a half-life of a little over 40 years, which means a millennium of storage will reduce its danger by about a factor of a million. (The iodine isotope that people were concerned with is almost certainly completely gone, considering its half-life, number of atoms released, and the fact that it decays into a stable isotope.)
IIRC, the Concorde was not allowed at supersonic speeds over land areas, which means that it was no faster than an ordinary airliner going from the East Coast to San Francisco, and much less efficient.
i once went to an experimental art performance. (I was a friend of the soprano, along with about a quarter of the rest of the audience.) My conclusion: if you know it's going to succeed and/or be good, it isn't experimental.
Are there people who aren't white men who work hard, and who do well?
Non sequitur. The example of one black guy who did well doesn't mean all black guys who work hard do well. Nor does success among one ethnic group mean all minority ethnic groups succeed. I'm claiming that blacks in general have it harder than whites in general because of discrimination, whether implicit or explicit. Native Americans in general are even worse off. This is, as far as I've been able to piece it together, reality.
As far as socialism, government ownership of the means of production was shown to be a Bad Idea, and most people (particularly in the US) are agreed on that. Nobody even slightly mainstream in the US argues for that. Therefore, you are not talking about reality when you accuse almost anyone in the US of being socialist in the discredited meaning.
Specifically, such things as providing education, universal health care, social safety nets, and help for the disadvantages have nothing to do with who owns the means of production, and are widely practiced by countries with free market capitalist economies that have excellent human rights records and are functioning democracies, frequently better than the US in those and other categories.
There is no convergence of interests from both sides of the political spectrum to view (ownership of the means of production by the workers or the state) in a new way. That's generally considered a Bad Idea. There is such a convergence to view (government intervention to help the disadvantaged) as worth arguing about. People are using socialism to mean a system in which the government will provide free education, worker protections, social safety nets, etc. These systems typically exist in countries that are economically free-market capitalist (because free-market capitalism with appropriate regulations is by far the best system we've got right now).
Sanders has pushed for things like government-paid college education, universal health care, and the like. He hasn't pushed for government ownership of the means of production. Yet, you claim he's a socialist. Therefore, you';re using the (government intervention to help the disadvantaged) meaning, or you're lying. Sanders is, by your definition, a Social Democrat.
Slashdot Mirror
Applying names to things is a first step in understanding them. We have very strong evidence that something causes gravitational effects and doesn't interact in other ways we could detect. We call it dark matter, because it's more scientific-sounding than calling it Fred. It's got gravity, and that's characteristic of some form of matter. We really don't know much about it, but giving it a name means we can more easily list what we know and what we don't know, speculate on other properties it might have, etc.
Lots of accepted science started as placeholders for things we couldn't explain otherwise. Then we learned more about them.
Dark matter is matter that can't be detected by electromagnetic means. I'm not dark matter, since if you come over to me and shine a light on me you can see me with photons, which are electromagnetic. Non-luminous normal matter does interact electronically, and we can see it by its effects. It can block light, or diffuse light. We know how to detect matter like that, and so we know that dark matter isn't like that.
Why isn't it testable? We've made predictions based on the assumption of dark matter and verified them. That makes it a testable hypothesis.
We've got something similar to dark matter: neutrinos. Dark matter as we perceive it isn't neutrinos, but it shares some of the properties. It's a reasonable extension from something we already know.
The other theories to explain rotational speeds don't account for other things dark matter does. It was first hypothesized as a solution to galactic rotation, as I remember, but there's been plenty of other confirmation coming in. Something we can't detect by other means is creating gravitational fields.
Nope. You're missing the difference. I've seen no evidence that Damore would have been fired if he'd just posted his essay where it belonged. He wasn't fired because of his views. Look up the Labor Relations board findings.
Damore was pushing his essay on other employees, who weren't interested. He pushed it on people who were made uncomfortable by it. At that point, he was creating a disturbance, and got fired for it. His actual ideas don't matter in that. I'm sure that, if I were to repeatedly push an ideological statement on people here, no matter what the ideology, I'd face consequences.
It's a definition I've seen in common use around here. It's more useful than the older definition. Being more of a descriptivist than a prescriptivist linguist does not make me a liar, and I haven't accused anyone else of being a liar. Sanders is a Social Democrat by your definition. Social Democratic countries uniformly have capitalism and a free market.
Okay, you've demonstrated that you don't understand what I'm saying.
I'm not particularly ideological. I'm not all that naive. I believe that there is no perfect system. I'm perfectly aware that attempts at actual Socialist governments have been bloody authoritarian failures. I don't espouse Communist ideals. I'm not going to incredible lengths to justify any system. I don't try to make excuses for the Gulag system, or even for the less horrible stuff the US does.
What I want is a free market capitalist economy, regulated to prevent abuses and to internalize externalities, and certain social programs, which are common in many democratic countries with high happiness ratings. There's a difference. I'm a Social Democrat by your terms, as far as I can tell.
The data on the Uber cars suggest they're a lot less safe than Waymo cars. Assuming a government will allow self-driving cars, it's reasonable to look at which ones look safe enough.
Damages don't necessarily apply. No amount of money will bring back the victim of the last Uber accident. We don't want rich people and well-funded corporations to go out and kill people.
The compatibility test is for what you can do. If you want to write a general Java program, and run it, you can't do that without using the published APIs. It's a matter of functional necessity. If you don't intend to run a Java program on a standard implementation, then you can use any other API available, so you aren't forced to use the standard Java JVM and libraries. If it's necessary to accomplish something, it's fair use. If it's for convenience, it isn't.
Satire, in the US, is fair use. Dalvik was not intended nor presented as a parody of the JVM.
I'm restating Oracle's claim from the lawsuit earlier If Google can show that a ton of existing code was intended to run on Android, they should win the lawsuit.
Mono.NET is, IIRC, explicitly allowed to copy Microsoft due to Microsoft's issuing a legally binding promise. WINE might be a better example. BTW, wasn't Mono.NET designed to offer compatibility between Windows and other environments for programs, among other things?
You've never dealt with an asshole in your life? Sometimes assholes have something you need or really want, so you go through with it and complain to your friends afterward.
If you're selling something in public, there are reasons you can't legally deny a sale. You have to sell to blacks and whites and men and women and other protected classes. You don't have to sell to a specific person, although if it comes out that you never deal with blacks you're going to be in trouble.
This isn't abuse of their software by others. This is Facebook fulfilling an illegal request (or looks like it; IANAL, and I'm going to wait for a judicial ruling).
Using APIs for compatibility purposes isn't against copyright law, and I believe nobody in the case is saying anything different. You use Java APIs when you write a Java program, since you want it to run on existing Java implementations, and when you write a Java implementation, since you want existing programs to run on it.
You mention the WIndows APIs for WINE. WINE exists to run existing Windows programs, so it uses the API because it has to be compatible. That's legal.
Now, suppose I find documentation for a proprietary program, and use the overall design, replicating the internal APIs. I've then infringed on the original copyright. I have to do my own overall design. I didn't have to use that, since I had to write a new program to be legal, and I can't use too many things from the old one. This has been tested in the court system.
Oracle claims that Google didn't intend Android Java programs to run on existing Java implementations, or Dalvik etc. to run existing Java programs. That's more like the situation in the paragraph above.
APIs are not necessarily merely functional. Putting together a good API for anything complex requires judgment, and hence creativity. Given the need to express particular functionality, different architects will come out with different APIs. Creative works can be mostly functional, since the amount of creativity involved is small.
However, in order to write a Java program, you need to use the APIs. Copyright law is not intended to prevent anyone from doing anything other than limit copying in various forms, so using APIs in that way is legally OK.
Here's my understanding.
Everybody agrees that using APIs for compatibility purposes is fair use. Therefore, it's fair use when writing Java programs to run on an existing JVM, and it's fair use when writing a new JVM that will run existing code. This covers almost all cases, and (as far as I can tell) all important cases. People can keep writing Java programs and JVMs.
According to copyright law, it's clear that APIs are copyrighted. They're creative, and they're in fixed form. Therefore, the only legal ways to use an API is to be the copyright holder, have a license, or fair use. Fair use covers all cases we're really interested in.
Oracle's claim is that Google's use of the API is not for compatibility. The claim is that Google's JVM (Dalvik) is not intended to run standard Java programs, and Java programs written for Android are not intended to run on other systems. Therefore, Google picked Java as the main Android programming language because it was familiar to programmers, not to be compatible with any existing software. Google could have picked any language, or invented one, without loss of compatibility. Therefore, they used Java and (more importantly) Java APIs merely to make Android programming more attractive.
I'm not speculating on whether Oracle's claim is true or not. However, it doesn't cover the cases where using APIs is necessary. If Oracle wins this, approximately nothing changes and there are no additional problems for software developers (except everyone involved in Java on the Android).
Shouldn't that be whether specific AVs are safe enough? It may well be that Waymo AVs are safe enough, and Uber AVs are not.
The adaptive cruise control on my car works just fine in every situation I've tried it in, but I'll still hit the brake when a failure of the system might result in a crash. You don't have to assume the car will do the right thing. Just have it signal somehow (like starting to brake before it's too late).
My car is often found in the parking lot at work during the daytime, but normally is at my house at night, where I can put it into a standard location. (This does not apply for people without reserved off-street parking, of course.)
I agree. Consider peak demand. Power companies have to build lots of excess capacity to cover it. It there was a feasible storage system, they could avoid a lot of expensive construction and operation and save a lot of money.
We've got the incentive. We don't have the storage. There's a conclusion there.
Depends on what you're looking at. 1998 was a very hot year. Next year, it won't be the case that there hasn't been that much warming in 20 years, as 1999 was a more normal year. Look at any sort of smoothed average, and it's clear we've been warming up.
Global warming is going to have a disproportionate effect on the poor, worldwide. Keeping energy prices low at the cost of lots more CO2 is not a good deal for them.
Burning wood is carbon-neutral. The trees get the carbon out of atmospheric CO2, it gets burned into CO2 again, and there's no net change in the amount of carbon in the cycle.
Depends on what you mean by "highly radioactive". Radium is normally considered dangerous, and it's got a half-life of something like 1600 years. On the other hand, that cesium isotope we had problems with after Fukushima has a half-life of a little over 40 years, which means a millennium of storage will reduce its danger by about a factor of a million. (The iodine isotope that people were concerned with is almost certainly completely gone, considering its half-life, number of atoms released, and the fact that it decays into a stable isotope.)
IIRC, the Concorde was not allowed at supersonic speeds over land areas, which means that it was no faster than an ordinary airliner going from the East Coast to San Francisco, and much less efficient.
i once went to an experimental art performance. (I was a friend of the soprano, along with about a quarter of the rest of the audience.) My conclusion: if you know it's going to succeed and/or be good, it isn't experimental.
Non sequitur. The example of one black guy who did well doesn't mean all black guys who work hard do well. Nor does success among one ethnic group mean all minority ethnic groups succeed. I'm claiming that blacks in general have it harder than whites in general because of discrimination, whether implicit or explicit. Native Americans in general are even worse off. This is, as far as I've been able to piece it together, reality.
As far as socialism, government ownership of the means of production was shown to be a Bad Idea, and most people (particularly in the US) are agreed on that. Nobody even slightly mainstream in the US argues for that. Therefore, you are not talking about reality when you accuse almost anyone in the US of being socialist in the discredited meaning.
Specifically, such things as providing education, universal health care, social safety nets, and help for the disadvantages have nothing to do with who owns the means of production, and are widely practiced by countries with free market capitalist economies that have excellent human rights records and are functioning democracies, frequently better than the US in those and other categories.
There is no convergence of interests from both sides of the political spectrum to view (ownership of the means of production by the workers or the state) in a new way. That's generally considered a Bad Idea. There is such a convergence to view (government intervention to help the disadvantaged) as worth arguing about. People are using socialism to mean a system in which the government will provide free education, worker protections, social safety nets, etc. These systems typically exist in countries that are economically free-market capitalist (because free-market capitalism with appropriate regulations is by far the best system we've got right now).
Sanders has pushed for things like government-paid college education, universal health care, and the like. He hasn't pushed for government ownership of the means of production. Yet, you claim he's a socialist. Therefore, you';re using the (government intervention to help the disadvantaged) meaning, or you're lying. Sanders is, by your definition, a Social Democrat.