Poor decisions in strategy (bad builds, attacking up ramps, attacking into arcs) combined with super-human micro. The blink micro from the computer was beautiful, and the ability to fight in four different positions on the map was something only a computer could do. The computer could micro perfectly on one side of the map while warping in units on the other side of the map.
Emphasis mine. Yes, it's an advantage, but it's not cheating. Humans can use the minimap to see what's going on as well.
The minimap doesn't show you what units are in an area, it doesn't let you see their hitpoints. It doesn't let you click on the units: if you want to click on the unit, you have to move your screen there then click on it, that's two actions.
POSIX is fair use. Although the API may be copyrighted, POSIX was created to enable interoperability, by the copyright holders themselves. These things favor fair use.
It's not one sentence. You can use one sentence from a book. You can't use thousands of sentences. And certainly not arranged in the same in the same chapters (objects).
It can be fair use. To claim fair use, you need to consider all of the four factors. Copying a large portion doesn't prevent a use from being fair use.
They're not only claiming copyright on the work as a whole, they're claiming that each API call is a copyrighted passage, just like each sentence in a book is copyrighted. They're saying that the name of a method or function, along with its arguments, is a copyrightable creative passage.
It's more than that. It was the structure, sequence, and organization of the APIs. So Math.max() is probably not copyrightable, but Java.lang.math.max(), when combined with thousands other functions in the same library, is also copyrightable. Google didn't need to use the Java prefix.
The Java creators needed to make decisions like, "should Exception go into Java.lang, or should it go into java.runtime? Should String go into java.object, or should it go into java.util? Where should vector go?" So the organization of these things is creative (and even Google admits that).
Ultimately, if the supreme court declines to overturn this case, then it means you should not use an API without a license. Build your own.
I read the 21 relevant pages from Google's writ, and I'd say it'll be granted. The second half of it hinges on fair use, and it's a weaker argument. The first half is all about the disagreements among the circuit courts, and that always attracts the attention of the Supreme Court.
Lawyers are trained to be convincing, and they are by tradition only giving one half of the case. Thus when you read one side's argument (or sit in court listening to one side's argument), it will usually sound convincing. To get a clear view, it is necessary to read both sides. Even better, read the judge's conclusion. But don't make your analysis based on only one side's lawyers. They are biased by design.
For those playing along at home, if the last ruling in Oracle's favor stands, Novell essentially owns the Linux kernel. The Linux kernel reimplements the UNIX kernel API. If the ruling by the blithering idiots in the Court of Appeals is allowed to stand, that's illegal without a license. Novell's lawyers would have to write a license to allow Linux to continue to exist
This is unlikely to be true, because X/Open and POSIX were developed with the intent to be an open standard.
For most software, it's a good idea to not use an API unless you have a license. That should be common sense by now.
Trump thinks his approval ratings will rebound if he successfully gets the wall. If he loses the wall fight, he'll almost certainly lose re-election. Also he's counting on a North Korean peace deal announcement next month to really give him a boost.
That motto was created by Paul Buchheit and Amit Patel, and they both left Google a while ago.
Arguably Google is now carried forward by its own bureaucracy more than anything.
It is a moral imperative to use ad blocking. Ads incentivize the wrong kinds of content to be created: things like click-bait and fake news.
Even if you don't think ads are immoral, you should still use ad block as a practical matter: malware can be served to you from all the major ad networks, so if you don't want to be hacked, use ad-block.
As I've heard it, it's primarily "reduce prison numbers" because minorities are disproportionally incarcerated.
In California, we enacted strict laws, so the jails filled up. No one wanted to increase the budget of jails, so instead, they over-filled them with prisoners, or reduced the number of guards (no guards in the guard towers), or tried to get county jails to take some of the state prisoners.
That created health problems, so there were lawsuits, and the court ordered the prison systems to release some prisoners, or build new jails. The court didn't explain how to do it. Eventually they did just release a bunch of prisoners. That is where the pressure comes from (no doubt other states are different.)
I've done A/B testing with DACs, and there was definitely a noticeable difference. You're better off getting good headphones first IMO, though.
Things to listen for:
Listen to the background instruments. A lot of times they didn't get full respect during the recording process, so they sound even worse with bad earphones.
Listen to the space: where is the sound coming from? Does it sound like a stage, or like a theater, or a recording studio?BR>
Listen to the dynamic changes, especially at the moment when a new instrument or sound comes in. A cheap DAC or AMP will have trouble getting the voltage up quickly enough to give it a good punch, so it will be kind of a fade-in instead of a strong attack.
Most people can't tell the difference in A/B test
Many studies have been done where people actually select the lossy compression as the better sounding choice.
These two statements are somewhat contradictory: can they tell the difference (by choosing the lossy compression) or can't they?
I've found if you tell people what to listen for, they quickly learn to hear it. Listen to the cymbals, in heavily compressed music they just kind of are muddy, they don't have that nice crisp crack.
Age and gender? They can probably get that almost as reliably and more usefully via datamining/machine learning from the mass of data.
Weirdly, it can't. There are some very difficult and odd things that data mining can figure out, but there are also surprising limitations. Age and gender are the ones advertisers want the most (because they have many decades of experience and theory using those two things to sell).
IF I was a democrat, I'd recommend that you not use the "we cannot afford this" argument card.
The effective approach for a politician to use is to declare as many varied different reasons as possible, without worrying if they are true or not, because someone will believe it, and your opponents will be distracted by spending all their time fact checking.
Besides, if you have enough reasons, most people eventually will stop listening and think, "Oh, he has that many reasons, it must be true." It's a fallacy, but an effective one politicians should know if they're trying to get their way.
Slashdot Mirror
Poor decisions in strategy (bad builds, attacking up ramps, attacking into arcs) combined with super-human micro. The blink micro from the computer was beautiful, and the ability to fight in four different positions on the map was something only a computer could do. The computer could micro perfectly on one side of the map while warping in units on the other side of the map.
We've known for a long time that computers are better than humans at micro, that's not very interesting.
Emphasis mine. Yes, it's an advantage, but it's not cheating. Humans can use the minimap to see what's going on as well.
The minimap doesn't show you what units are in an area, it doesn't let you see their hitpoints. It doesn't let you click on the units: if you want to click on the unit, you have to move your screen there then click on it, that's two actions.
It's cheating.
In fact, I'll bet a big enough balance patch will cause it to have to throw out everything it's learned.
A different map would throw out everything it learned.
If Google loses, what happens to Unix?
POSIX is fair use. Although the API may be copyrighted, POSIX was created to enable interoperability, by the copyright holders themselves. These things favor fair use.
Copying for the purpose of interoperability is fair use. There is legal precedent on this point, Sega vs Accolade.
It's not one sentence. You can use one sentence from a book. You can't use thousands of sentences. And certainly not arranged in the same in the same chapters (objects).
It can be fair use. To claim fair use, you need to consider all of the four factors. Copying a large portion doesn't prevent a use from being fair use.
"Using most or all of a work does not bar a finding of fair use. It simply makes the third factor less favorable to the defendant." Wikipedia suggests copying entire TV shows (which is more than thousands of sentences) as an example that was ruled fair use.
If you have time I strongly recommend reading the court's finding. It is clear and well reasoned.
They're not only claiming copyright on the work as a whole, they're claiming that each API call is a copyrighted passage, just like each sentence in a book is copyrighted. They're saying that the name of a method or function, along with its arguments, is a copyrightable creative passage.
It's more than that. It was the structure, sequence, and organization of the APIs. So Math.max() is probably not copyrightable, but Java.lang.math.max(), when combined with thousands other functions in the same library, is also copyrightable. Google didn't need to use the Java prefix.
The Java creators needed to make decisions like, "should Exception go into Java.lang, or should it go into java.runtime? Should String go into java.object, or should it go into java.util? Where should vector go?" So the organization of these things is creative (and even Google admits that).
Ultimately, if the supreme court declines to overturn this case, then it means you should not use an API without a license. Build your own.
I read the 21 relevant pages from Google's writ, and I'd say it'll be granted. The second half of it hinges on fair use, and it's a weaker argument. The first half is all about the disagreements among the circuit courts, and that always attracts the attention of the Supreme Court.
Lawyers are trained to be convincing, and they are by tradition only giving one half of the case. Thus when you read one side's argument (or sit in court listening to one side's argument), it will usually sound convincing. To get a clear view, it is necessary to read both sides. Even better, read the judge's conclusion. But don't make your analysis based on only one side's lawyers. They are biased by design.
For those playing along at home, if the last ruling in Oracle's favor stands, Novell essentially owns the Linux kernel. The Linux kernel reimplements the UNIX kernel API. If the ruling by the blithering idiots in the Court of Appeals is allowed to stand, that's illegal without a license. Novell's lawyers would have to write a license to allow Linux to continue to exist
This is unlikely to be true, because X/Open and POSIX were developed with the intent to be an open standard.
For most software, it's a good idea to not use an API unless you have a license. That should be common sense by now.
Trump thinks his approval ratings will rebound if he successfully gets the wall. If he loses the wall fight, he'll almost certainly lose re-election. Also he's counting on a North Korean peace deal announcement next month to really give him a boost.
Before jumping ship,
Nah, just jump to Firefox.Firefox is a fine browser, and it's better to not have a browser monoculture.
Why does Wikipedia need machine learning?
That motto was created by Paul Buchheit and Amit Patel, and they both left Google a while ago.
Arguably Google is now carried forward by its own bureaucracy more than anything.
It's worth a try. It depends on the application, but in my experience, all the Applications I want to use work well enough.
It is a moral imperative to use ad blocking. Ads incentivize the wrong kinds of content to be created: things like click-bait and fake news.
Even if you don't think ads are immoral, you should still use ad block as a practical matter: malware can be served to you from all the major ad networks, so if you don't want to be hacked, use ad-block.
Why so cheerful?
Actually, we do have the tech required to allow us to live on Mars.
Not in a self-sustaining way, really.
How did it work?
As I've heard it, it's primarily "reduce prison numbers" because minorities are disproportionally incarcerated.
In California, we enacted strict laws, so the jails filled up. No one wanted to increase the budget of jails, so instead, they over-filled them with prisoners, or reduced the number of guards (no guards in the guard towers), or tried to get county jails to take some of the state prisoners.
That created health problems, so there were lawsuits, and the court ordered the prison systems to release some prisoners, or build new jails. The court didn't explain how to do it. Eventually they did just release a bunch of prisoners. That is where the pressure comes from (no doubt other states are different.)
And also the built-in DAC with an external DAC?
I've done A/B testing with DACs, and there was definitely a noticeable difference. You're better off getting good headphones first IMO, though.
Things to listen for:
Listen to the background instruments. A lot of times they didn't get full respect during the recording process, so they sound even worse with bad earphones.
Listen to the space: where is the sound coming from? Does it sound like a stage, or like a theater, or a recording studio?BR>
Listen to the dynamic changes, especially at the moment when a new instrument or sound comes in. A cheap DAC or AMP will have trouble getting the voltage up quickly enough to give it a good punch, so it will be kind of a fade-in instead of a strong attack.
Most people can't tell the difference in A/B test
Many studies have been done where people actually select the lossy compression as the better sounding choice.
These two statements are somewhat contradictory: can they tell the difference (by choosing the lossy compression) or can't they?
I've found if you tell people what to listen for, they quickly learn to hear it. Listen to the cymbals, in heavily compressed music they just kind of are muddy, they don't have that nice crisp crack.
Age and gender? They can probably get that almost as reliably and more usefully via datamining/machine learning from the mass of data.
Weirdly, it can't. There are some very difficult and odd things that data mining can figure out, but there are also surprising limitations. Age and gender are the ones advertisers want the most (because they have many decades of experience and theory using those two things to sell).
Agreed, but then it can be okay to make the other person angry depending upon the relationship you need to maintain with them.
That's true too.
IF I was a democrat, I'd recommend that you not use the "we cannot afford this" argument card.
The effective approach for a politician to use is to declare as many varied different reasons as possible, without worrying if they are true or not, because someone will believe it, and your opponents will be distracted by spending all their time fact checking.
Besides, if you have enough reasons, most people eventually will stop listening and think, "Oh, he has that many reasons, it must be true." It's a fallacy, but an effective one politicians should know if they're trying to get their way.
They got name age and gender. The last two were the ones they really cared about.