Nah, if Google lost it wouldn't be so bad, because of the narrowness of the case. See for example.
Despite the hype stories, we'll still be able to use Java even if Oracle wins.
You can't deserve to have a matter of law on an unrelated topic
Would it make you feel better if I said, "They deserve to have a comet smash into their Mountain View headquarters?" Cosmic justice knows no logic, do not presume to argue with the divinations of karma.
Google in fact was found to not infringe on any of the "implementation code",
That's not true actually, they were found (by the jury) to have infringed on the rangeCheck code, and the appellate court let the finding stand. The clean room technique ensures that you only copy the bare minimum to reach your purpose, which is an important consideration under factor number three of fair use.
What about the other fair use factors? 1, 2 and 4? For example, with fair-use factor number 1, Google's use was for-profit, whereas most open source projects are not. Google's use also wasn't for purposes of interoperability, which is the major reason for wanting to copy an API (if they had done a good job being interoperable, Sun would have happily given them a license, since that's what Sun wanted in the first place).
Certain projects are better done with dynamic (loose-typed) languages in my opinion.
Like what? Serious question. How would you kind of shape the line between dynamic 'good' projects and dynamic 'bad' projects? (I don't have an answer, just interested in exploring the idea).
"Writing software today is eerily similar to what it was like in the late 1950s, when people sat at terminals and wrote COBOL programs. And like the late 1950s, the stereotype of the coder is largely unchanged: mostly white guys with deep math skills, and minimal extroversion
The guy who wants to change the world, can't keep from relying on stereotypes to understand the world.
Also programmers don't tend to have 'deep math skills' (including myself). It's just that compared to this CEO, understanding basic algebra counts as deep math skills.
Maybe. I would look at the C# and Java comparison: when I first switched from Java to C#, it was different, but I kind of knew what I was looking for, and I was able to find it easily enough. I quickly gained 'muscle memory' in C#. So similarly, if I switched to a random keyboard layout, it would be a pain at first, but I would know what I was looking for, and find it easily enough. Whereas with a cyrillic alphabet, it would like switching to Forth or something.
And this ruling by the judge is aimed at the appellate court, it's not a 'blast' at Oracle, that's just a hype headline. The judge ruled against Oracle, very calmly, on the first page. It then goes on to talk directly to the appellate court ("Since an appeal is promised, however, it may be of assistance to leave a few important observations.").
The judge spends several pages explaining why APIs should be fair use. He explains that textbooks reproduce exactly the same APIs. He says that if someone tried to use Java without those APIs, then it would be like using a typewriter where the keys aren't QWERTY.
The appellate court nearly ruled in favor of Oracle on fair use in the last appeal, and Judge Alsup didn't like their ruling at all, so here he is trying to make an argument in favor of all APIs being fair use. He makes a very good argument, but now Oracle's lawyers will have a chance to counter argue, and the appellate court agreed with them before.
There's so much hype around this case, but because Google didn't use a clean-room implementation, a ruling against them wouldn't necessarily be bad for the rest of us. Google was sloppy.
As time goes on, and "unibody aluminum" becomes commoditized, and eventually people are not interested in OSX or iPhones anymore; Apple, with plenty of cash reserves, starts investing more and more in power production, while over time, letting programmers go.
A hundred years from now, everyone thinks of Apple as the power company, and if they know at all, they think it's quaint that Apple started as a computer company, much like we think of Nintendo starting as a trading card company, or Nokia as a wood-pulp mill.
Wow, being legal is not the same as being good, or being moral, or being the right thing to do. Police can still be scumbags, even if they are following the law.
If I were Clinton, I would pick this up, and start talking about how bad it is (because obviously, it's bad). Then I would start tying it to eminent domain, confusing the terms in people's minds, so they start to seem the same. Then I would start hitting Trump hard for supporting eminent domain, because he does.
That's my unprofessional political strategy. Bonus: once you get elected, you can fix the problem, and people think you are great.
That's true, but you need to see how they intersect.
IF the price of healthcare dropped (to say, $300 a year per person) then it would be cheap enough that only ideologues would care if it were paid for by the government or by individuals.
Slashdot Mirror
Nah, if Google lost it wouldn't be so bad, because of the narrowness of the case. See for example.
Despite the hype stories, we'll still be able to use Java even if Oracle wins.
You can't deserve to have a matter of law on an unrelated topic
Would it make you feel better if I said, "They deserve to have a comet smash into their Mountain View headquarters?" Cosmic justice knows no logic, do not presume to argue with the divinations of karma.
Google in fact was found to not infringe on any of the "implementation code",
That's not true actually, they were found (by the jury) to have infringed on the rangeCheck code, and the appellate court let the finding stand. The clean room technique ensures that you only copy the bare minimum to reach your purpose, which is an important consideration under factor number three of fair use.
What about the other fair use factors? 1, 2 and 4? For example, with fair-use factor number 1, Google's use was for-profit, whereas most open source projects are not. Google's use also wasn't for purposes of interoperability, which is the major reason for wanting to copy an API (if they had done a good job being interoperable, Sun would have happily given them a license, since that's what Sun wanted in the first place).
Google now appropriately deserves to lose their Oracle case now.
Certain projects are better done with dynamic (loose-typed) languages in my opinion.
Like what? Serious question. How would you kind of shape the line between dynamic 'good' projects and dynamic 'bad' projects? (I don't have an answer, just interested in exploring the idea).
I thought of HyperCard as "Powerpoint, but better." You didn't have to program, but the option was there if you needed to.
"Writing software today is eerily similar to what it was like in the late 1950s, when people sat at terminals and wrote COBOL programs. And like the late 1950s, the stereotype of the coder is largely unchanged: mostly white guys with deep math skills, and minimal extroversion
The guy who wants to change the world, can't keep from relying on stereotypes to understand the world.
Also programmers don't tend to have 'deep math skills' (including myself). It's just that compared to this CEO, understanding basic algebra counts as deep math skills.
Maybe. I would look at the C# and Java comparison: when I first switched from Java to C#, it was different, but I kind of knew what I was looking for, and I was able to find it easily enough. I quickly gained 'muscle memory' in C#. So similarly, if I switched to a random keyboard layout, it would be a pain at first, but I would know what I was looking for, and find it easily enough. Whereas with a cyrillic alphabet, it would like switching to Forth or something.
And this ruling by the judge is aimed at the appellate court, it's not a 'blast' at Oracle, that's just a hype headline. The judge ruled against Oracle, very calmly, on the first page. It then goes on to talk directly to the appellate court ("Since an appeal is promised, however, it may be of assistance to leave a few important observations.").
The judge spends several pages explaining why APIs should be fair use. He explains that textbooks reproduce exactly the same APIs. He says that if someone tried to use Java without those APIs, then it would be like using a typewriter where the keys aren't QWERTY.
The appellate court nearly ruled in favor of Oracle on fair use in the last appeal, and Judge Alsup didn't like their ruling at all, so here he is trying to make an argument in favor of all APIs being fair use. He makes a very good argument, but now Oracle's lawyers will have a chance to counter argue, and the appellate court agreed with them before.
There's so much hype around this case, but because Google didn't use a clean-room implementation, a ruling against them wouldn't necessarily be bad for the rest of us. Google was sloppy.
Is Oracle using SCO's law firm?
Yes, actually, Same law firm.
I really hope you are right.
Yes. What part of what I said confused you?
Have to give credit to the actors and producers for managing to stage something halfway reasonable out of the horrid script.
Yeah I didn't want to do the research to find a company that matched exactly. Lazy me.
Good luck!
As time goes on, and "unibody aluminum" becomes commoditized, and eventually people are not interested in OSX or iPhones anymore; Apple, with plenty of cash reserves, starts investing more and more in power production, while over time, letting programmers go.
A hundred years from now, everyone thinks of Apple as the power company, and if they know at all, they think it's quaint that Apple started as a computer company, much like we think of Nintendo starting as a trading card company, or Nokia as a wood-pulp mill.
Wow, being legal is not the same as being good, or being moral, or being the right thing to do. Police can still be scumbags, even if they are following the law.
Have you succeeded? (I grow house plants, but when I get a new one, I usually apologize to it in advance)
Why the fuck would Clinton want to do that?
To help win the election, mainly.
Clearly we need to invent a tricoroder.
It doesn't matter if he supports it or not, as political strategy, it only matters if you can make people believe that he does.
If I were Clinton, I would pick this up, and start talking about how bad it is (because obviously, it's bad). Then I would start tying it to eminent domain, confusing the terms in people's minds, so they start to seem the same. Then I would start hitting Trump hard for supporting eminent domain, because he does.
That's my unprofessional political strategy. Bonus: once you get elected, you can fix the problem, and people think you are great.
That's true, but you need to see how they intersect.
IF the price of healthcare dropped (to say, $300 a year per person) then it would be cheap enough that only ideologues would care if it were paid for by the government or by individuals.
A lot of it won't, it becomes soil.
Evaluating what's good for an economy is hard. You've seemed to sidetrack on evaluating what's good for a society
I wish more people recognized the difference between "What is good for the economy" and "What is good for society."