The cheaper we can get energy, the better and cooler things we can do. If we can get energy cheap enough, then we can affordably transmute lead into gold. How cool is that?
When the first vaccines came out, people lined up around the block and people fought shortages to keep up with demand. It was hailed as a miracle, and people couldn't believe they might finally be free of these unimaginable afflictions plaguing humanity.
Unsurprisingly, there were anti-vaxers at the beginning, too. They were afraid they would actually get the disease from the vaccine.
You asked what it did. That's what it does. If you want something more specific, it also marks it with the class name, so it can be addressed through introspection.
Regardless, even if its boilerplate, you can't deny that it's code and that it does something.
At runtime (actually when the program loads) it does boring things like allocate space in RAM where it marks the start of some function virtual method tables.
Interoperability is a consideration, but the case should not be read to mean that you can do whatever you want for interoperability.
Yes. Quantity is a factor also, but it is the third factor, and needs to be taken into consideration. If quantity were the only thing weighing against Google, and the other three factors favored Google, then would they have lost?
But actually three factors weighed against Google, and only one favored Google. And it is hard to justify that Google's use served the purpose of having copyright: to encourage the creation of art and culture by rewarding authors and artists with a set of exclusive rights
The argument in favor of Google is entirely in the second factor. You can skip through the ruling to that point if you want.
This ruling could affect interoperability, which is why I'd like to see Google win, but I don't think current law is in their side. I may come across a solid argument of why the law is on the side
The law isn't on Google's side on this one. The court addressed interoperability in the ruling, you can search for interoperability to find it. I would tell you, but why ruin the surprise?
Interoperability is a valid fair use defense, though: see Sega vs Accolade. Another potential interoperability defense is that the functional parts of the code can't be copyrighted, only the creative parts (like variable names, how the library is organized). If I write software that interacts with Bitkeeper without looking at the code, merely looking at the protocol output, then there is a strong case that most of what I have copied is functional.
Another novel item in this case, I think worth a look, is the way the court balanced out the four fair-use factors, in the conclusion.
I'll go farther than that haha. I don't even want Google to win. It's just two rich corporations deciding who owes who a few billion. No big deal.
The real question is, can I do what I want to as a programmer, even with this decision? Turns out the answer is, yes. All APIs that I want to use come with a license, and there is an interoperability fair-use defense available when companies don't want things like Wine to exist.
Again, have you read the actual indictment? They list the text messages. They show the actual lies. They show him threatening potential witnesses. Hell, they show him threatening the pets of potential witnesses.
This is stuff that will get Roger Stone convicted. Poor guy, what a shame.
It's not evidence that Trump colluded with Russia.
The supreme court already was asked to rule and that point, and they let the appellate court's ruling stand. APIs qualify for copyright, and there is no legal theory to distinguish APIs from any other part of code, as far as copyright goes.
You do not need a license to use an API
You better make sure you have one. This is mostly not a problem: most APIs you have these days already come with a license. Java did too, but Google didn't comply.
This is really no different than the WINE project. WINE would also fail to run some use cases and earlier in the project would fail in most cases
You clearly didn't read the link I linked to earlier.
If he admits it after being arrested then I'll applaud Mueller for his hardball investigation strategies. But let's not pretend this is a smoking gun. This arrest is exploration (of course, Mueller knows things he isn't telling)
He was arrested for "making false statements." That is exactly the reason you shouldn't talk to cops, because even if you are completely innocent they can convict you based on a slip-up in the interview. Martha Stewart was arrested for the same thing.
Now, we should definitely let Meuller keep doing his thing, and find any evidence of collusion, but for impeachment they need to find something better than "making false statements" in an interview with cops.
That's the only way it won. It was able to notice when its stalkers were low in health and pull them back at the perfect time. It was able to accurately micro in battles at three or four locations.
The strategies and decision making (continually sending its army up a guarded ramp in a choke point, for example) were poor, but it was able to make up for it by using superior micro.
At the end of the match they tested an AI that was restricted to the viewport, but it lost badly.
it is using an interface into the game,
It is not using the same interface that humans use. It can instantly see all of its units' health, and is able to fight simultaneously in three places on the map.
According to the courts. Having a license will avoid expensive copyright suits that you might lose. By itself, a clean-room implementation is not fair-use: the clean-room aspect merely ensures you copied no more than necessary for the purposes of interoperability. Building your implementation for the purpose of interoperability can be a fair use defense. More info is available here.
Google tried the interoperability defense, but it failed because their software was not interoperable with Java.
Yeah that's a more realistic analysis. The court decided the second factor in favor of Google though. It's an interesting read, even though it is long. I strongly suggest reading the decision.
It wasn't APM spam, the APM was within a normal range, but the multi-tasking was super-human. Able to micro simultaneously in three different places on the map, able to know exactly how much health each of your units have (you know the exact moment you should blink black your stalker, for example).
Slashdot Mirror
The cheaper we can get energy, the better and cooler things we can do. If we can get energy cheap enough, then we can affordably transmute lead into gold. How cool is that?
When the first vaccines came out, people lined up around the block and people fought shortages to keep up with demand. It was hailed as a miracle, and people couldn't believe they might finally be free of these unimaginable afflictions plaguing humanity.
Unsurprisingly, there were anti-vaxers at the beginning, too. They were afraid they would actually get the disease from the vaccine.
Unvaccinated kids get autism, too. At the same rate as vaccinated kids, surprise!
You asked what it did. That's what it does. If you want something more specific, it also marks it with the class name, so it can be addressed through introspection.
Regardless, even if its boilerplate, you can't deny that it's code and that it does something.
At runtime (actually when the program loads) it does boring things like allocate space in RAM where it marks the start of some function virtual method tables.
but use with the explicit permission of the copyright holders (minus any patents).
I think that is true, but I haven't been able to find the license or permission anywhere.
I don't know if there is such an interoperability exception in the US copyright law, but if there is it should apply.
It's not explicitly written in the law, but some court cases have found it a valid defense.
It's understandable because there will certainly be a massive amount of overlap in a new clean room implementation using that abstracted standard.
This was not a clean-room implementation. Google was sloppy.
I think you are confused because you don't understand the abstraction, filtration, comparison test. You can read about it.
The story we are commenting under is a new request
Why on earth do you think the supreme court will decide to grant the request this time?
APIs aren't part of the code.
Oh yeah? So this:
"public final class String extends Object implements Serializable, Comparable, CharSequence {"
Is not code?
Interoperability is a consideration, but the case should not be read to mean that you can do whatever you want for interoperability.
Yes. Quantity is a factor also, but it is the third factor, and needs to be taken into consideration. If quantity were the only thing weighing against Google, and the other three factors favored Google, then would they have lost?
But actually three factors weighed against Google, and only one favored Google. And it is hard to justify that Google's use served the purpose of having copyright: to encourage the creation of art and culture by rewarding authors and artists with a set of exclusive rights
This ruling could affect interoperability, which is why I'd like to see Google win, but I don't think current law is in their side. I may come across a solid argument of why the law is on the side
The law isn't on Google's side on this one. The court addressed interoperability in the ruling, you can search for interoperability to find it. I would tell you, but why ruin the surprise?
Interoperability is a valid fair use defense, though: see Sega vs Accolade. Another potential interoperability defense is that the functional parts of the code can't be copyrighted, only the creative parts (like variable names, how the library is organized). If I write software that interacts with Bitkeeper without looking at the code, merely looking at the protocol output, then there is a strong case that most of what I have copied is functional.
Another novel item in this case, I think worth a look, is the way the court balanced out the four fair-use factors, in the conclusion.
Patience, my young padawan
I await.
I really hope that's sarcasm.
LOL
I'll go farther than that haha. I don't even want Google to win. It's just two rich corporations deciding who owes who a few billion. No big deal.
The real question is, can I do what I want to as a programmer, even with this decision? Turns out the answer is, yes. All APIs that I want to use come with a license, and there is an interoperability fair-use defense available when companies don't want things like Wine to exist.
Again, have you read the actual indictment? They list the text messages. They show the actual lies. They show him threatening potential witnesses. Hell, they show him threatening the pets of potential witnesses.
This is stuff that will get Roger Stone convicted. Poor guy, what a shame.
It's not evidence that Trump colluded with Russia.
. API's don't qualify for copyright
The supreme court already was asked to rule and that point, and they let the appellate court's ruling stand. APIs qualify for copyright, and there is no legal theory to distinguish APIs from any other part of code, as far as copyright goes.
You do not need a license to use an API
You better make sure you have one. This is mostly not a problem: most APIs you have these days already come with a license. Java did too, but Google didn't comply.
This is really no different than the WINE project. WINE would also fail to run some use cases and earlier in the project would fail in most cases
You clearly didn't read the link I linked to earlier.
If he admits it after being arrested then I'll applaud Mueller for his hardball investigation strategies. But let's not pretend this is a smoking gun. This arrest is exploration (of course, Mueller knows things he isn't telling)
He was arrested for "making false statements." That is exactly the reason you shouldn't talk to cops, because even if you are completely innocent they can convict you based on a slip-up in the interview. Martha Stewart was arrested for the same thing.
Now, we should definitely let Meuller keep doing his thing, and find any evidence of collusion, but for impeachment they need to find something better than "making false statements" in an interview with cops.
It seems like the AI was unable to remember where the units were when they went out of sight.
So no, it can't simply out multitask the human.
That's the only way it won. It was able to notice when its stalkers were low in health and pull them back at the perfect time. It was able to accurately micro in battles at three or four locations.
The strategies and decision making (continually sending its army up a guarded ramp in a choke point, for example) were poor, but it was able to make up for it by using superior micro.
The agent that played the live game didn't have the benefit of the overhead camera
The agent lost that match. It lost the match badly, despite having inhuman levels of micro ability.
The goalpost in AI research has always been chess
Go read a book by Marvin Minsky, you don't know history and your ignorance shows.
Actually, the AI is restricted to the viewport
At the end of the match they tested an AI that was restricted to the viewport, but it lost badly.
it is using an interface into the game,
It is not using the same interface that humans use. It can instantly see all of its units' health, and is able to fight simultaneously in three places on the map.
According to the courts. Having a license will avoid expensive copyright suits that you might lose. By itself, a clean-room implementation is not fair-use: the clean-room aspect merely ensures you copied no more than necessary for the purposes of interoperability. Building your implementation for the purpose of interoperability can be a fair use defense. More info is available here.
Google tried the interoperability defense, but it failed because their software was not interoperable with Java.
Yeah that's a more realistic analysis. The court decided the second factor in favor of Google though. It's an interesting read, even though it is long. I strongly suggest reading the decision.
It wasn't APM spam, the APM was within a normal range, but the multi-tasking was super-human. Able to micro simultaneously in three different places on the map, able to know exactly how much health each of your units have (you know the exact moment you should blink black your stalker, for example).
AlphaStar is using the same interface as other players.
This is in no way true at all.