The Judge generally weighs the jury's ruling pretty strongly. I honestly thought the jury would rule against google
Here are the instructions that were given to the jury. They are dense and difficult to understand; it would have taken me a day or so to really get a good understanding of them and how they apply to the case. I don't think the jurors tried to understand them, given how quickly they finished.
My guess is the jurors opened the source code to Android, saw how big it is, then opened the source code to the Java APIs, saw it was very small in comparison, and said, "ok, it's so small that it's surely fair use" (we know that the jury spent a lot of time trying to look at the source code).
The exact quote from Oracle lawyers is, "No reasonable jury could find that Google’s verbatim and entirely commercial use of the declaring code and SSO to compete against the Java platform was a fair use."
I don't think he will either. You are right, there's basically zero reason for him to overturn the jury now; even if he thought Oracle were correct, might as well let the appeal court do the dirty work.
I'm sure they will appeal, but it seems like a slim chance at this point.
Maybe. I don't know which court will hear the appeal, but if it goes to the same federal appeals court that the original question went to, then I think they will rule that it's not fair use. They almost did to begin with. In their earlier decision they wrote, "Oracle’s position is not without force. On many of these points, Google does not debate Oracle’s characterization of its conduct, nor could it on the record evidence."
The appellate court sent the case back for findings of fact: essentially to let Google present their evidence. Now the question is whether the appellate court will buy the new evidence or not.
It's also worth noting that this case does not cover all APIs, it only covers this particular use of this particular API (this was true in the original trial as well, including the federal court's ruling that said this API is copyrightable).
Oracle has threatened to appeal (because of the way the instructions to the jury were phrased), and in fact has filed a motion for JOML, which would overturn the jury's decision (basically they asked the judge to evaluate the evidence and determine whether a non-descript 'reasonable' jury would find it fair use).
So expect this to last for the rest of the year at least.
There have been ample metastudies assessing the percentage of climate papers supporting AGW - it's the 97% range, ex. ref [iop.org] and ref [iop.org].
So what question are you asking exactly lol? If you are asking whether human-released CO2 warms the atmosphere to some degree, then I have no contention with you. There is convincing evidence on that point, just as there is fairly convincing evidence that the climate models are not very accurate. Up to now we've been talking about climate models, but if you want to change th topic, that's fine.
All of the actual climate records track each other closely - GISS, HADCRUT, NOAA, RSS, UAH, etc. If you're posting something that significantly different, you're posting something not in line with actual science.
I didn't take either graph very seriously, but look up UAH and compare it to GISS, it accounts for the discrepancy between the two graphs.
If my tax dollars were not subsidizing McDonald's and WalMart's employees lived, I might be a little more amenable to your position.
It's not a position, it's data. You can actually measure that minimum wage makers are primarily teenagers, and that most people move beyond minimum wage after they've been working fora while.
%30 of the entire Labor-Market is low-wage service jobs.
Most of the law wage service job employees are not making minimum wage. The idea that "low wage" is identical to "minimum wage" is a fantasy that only belongs to you.
The bogeyman of massive unemployment always gets trotted out whenever anyone mentions raising the minimum wage.
Most people don't make minimum wage. If you're working to improve your skill, and you've been in the market more than two or three years, you'll easily be making more than minimum wage.
Among the people who do make minimum wage, mainly teenagers, there is ridiculously high unemployment. Look it up.
Circa 1790, 90% of American workers were farmers; today that's 2%, and a total of 11% of the workforce (including the farmers themselves) provides all the supporting infrastructure (energy, machines, pesticides, fertilizer, shipping, retail, marketing) to supply our food.
You can't just draw a line on a chart, call it "reality", and let that be that. Here's actual reality [nasa.gov]. Over 0.8 degrees since 1976, not 0.2.
Where are the error bars on your chart? Real scientists post error bars.
Looking more deeply, the graph you linked to is one measurement (an estimation based on averaging land based thermometers), whereas the one I linked to shows two different satellite measurement sequences. Unless there is a way to prove that one of these is more accurate than the other, then we have to say that the error in our measurement is at least as big as the difference between the two records.
Concerning both of them: there are literally tens of thousands of climate papers out there.
Then post them. Don't rely on crap blog posts: you're better than that, I know you are.
The problem wasn't the slow metabolism, that just means you have to eat less. The problem was, even after eating enough to give themselves energy, they still felt hungry.
In other words, they needed the hacker's diet, which takes into consideration the fact that your hunger doesn't match your eating needs.
The main problem is that people openly mock fat people to their faces. If someone is fat, that is their problem, and we should respect them as individuals. It doesn't mean we have to date a fat person, just treat them respectfully like any other person.
Well let us look at the actual data https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... which says something very different to the preposter's suggestions.
The differences between the numbers in your link and the ones I linked to show the differences in the various ways we measure global temperature. If you are thinking that means we can't measure the global temperature perfectly accurately, then you are right.
I know there's been this contrarian myth circulating claiming that climate models predicted warming that never occurred. There's a nice, well-referenced debunking of it here [skepticalscience.com].
I see your ancient blog debunking, and raise you actual science:
The more stupid patent lawsuits we have, the more likely we will see patent reform.
Right now, none of the big guys want patent reform, because it helps them keep down competitors, and some of them make a good chunk of money from it. If we want to see patent reform, then they're going to have to start hurting. Bring on the patent trolls, I say!
Here's how the cloud landscape is shaping up: AWS (and to a smaller degree Google's cloud) is getting popular among startup types, and people with deeper technical knowledge. IBM's cloud is getting popular among giant fortune 500 companies that don't care about technology and just want someone else to take care of it. Microsoft's cloud is gaining popularity among boring, mid-sized businesses who just want something easy (and who frankly, probably don't need a cloud). HP is dead in the water.
Slashdot Mirror
Oracle now has an uphill fight on their hands.
Indeed.
The Judge generally weighs the jury's ruling pretty strongly. I honestly thought the jury would rule against google
Here are the instructions that were given to the jury. They are dense and difficult to understand; it would have taken me a day or so to really get a good understanding of them and how they apply to the case. I don't think the jurors tried to understand them, given how quickly they finished.
My guess is the jurors opened the source code to Android, saw how big it is, then opened the source code to the Java APIs, saw it was very small in comparison, and said, "ok, it's so small that it's surely fair use" (we know that the jury spent a lot of time trying to look at the source code).
Exactly, thanks for the correction lol
The exact quote from Oracle lawyers is, "No reasonable jury could find that Google’s verbatim and entirely commercial use of the declaring code and SSO to compete against the Java platform was a fair use."
Knowing Alsup, he won't buy that one.
I don't think he will either. You are right, there's basically zero reason for him to overturn the jury now; even if he thought Oracle were correct, might as well let the appeal court do the dirty work.
I'm sure they will appeal, but it seems like a slim chance at this point.
Maybe. I don't know which court will hear the appeal, but if it goes to the same federal appeals court that the original question went to, then I think they will rule that it's not fair use. They almost did to begin with. In their earlier decision they wrote, "Oracle’s position is not without force. On many of these points, Google does not debate Oracle’s characterization of its conduct, nor could it on the record evidence."
The appellate court sent the case back for findings of fact: essentially to let Google present their evidence. Now the question is whether the appellate court will buy the new evidence or not.
It's also worth noting that this case does not cover all APIs, it only covers this particular use of this particular API (this was true in the original trial as well, including the federal court's ruling that said this API is copyrightable).
The trial is now over,
Oracle has threatened to appeal (because of the way the instructions to the jury were phrased), and in fact has filed a motion for JOML, which would overturn the jury's decision (basically they asked the judge to evaluate the evidence and determine whether a non-descript 'reasonable' jury would find it fair use).
So expect this to last for the rest of the year at least.
There have been ample metastudies assessing the percentage of climate papers supporting AGW - it's the 97% range, ex. ref [iop.org] and ref [iop.org].
So what question are you asking exactly lol? If you are asking whether human-released CO2 warms the atmosphere to some degree, then I have no contention with you. There is convincing evidence on that point, just as there is fairly convincing evidence that the climate models are not very accurate. Up to now we've been talking about climate models, but if you want to change th topic, that's fine.
All of the actual climate records track each other closely - GISS, HADCRUT, NOAA, RSS, UAH, etc. If you're posting something that significantly different, you're posting something not in line with actual science.
I didn't take either graph very seriously, but look up UAH and compare it to GISS, it accounts for the discrepancy between the two graphs.
And it doesn't follow that making a dime over minimum wage doesn't mean you are no longer qualified for social services.
I'm fine with that. I don't mind helping people who need help.
My point was to explain why you can raise the minimum wage without seeing a huge effect on unemployment.
If my tax dollars were not subsidizing McDonald's and WalMart's employees lived, I might be a little more amenable to your position.
It's not a position, it's data. You can actually measure that minimum wage makers are primarily teenagers, and that most people move beyond minimum wage after they've been working fora while.
Hillary is counting on the public to get corruption fatigue by using redirection and the "everyone is doing it" defense.
Her strategies have gotten them through all their other scandals.
%30 of the entire Labor-Market is low-wage service jobs.
Most of the law wage service job employees are not making minimum wage. The idea that "low wage" is identical to "minimum wage" is a fantasy that only belongs to you.
They've been talking about centralizing the drive thru to a call center so they don't have to staff the window for years.
Why haven't they? It seems like the technology has been there for years.
The bogeyman of massive unemployment always gets trotted out whenever anyone mentions raising the minimum wage.
Most people don't make minimum wage. If you're working to improve your skill, and you've been in the market more than two or three years, you'll easily be making more than minimum wage.
Among the people who do make minimum wage, mainly teenagers, there is ridiculously high unemployment. Look it up.
Circa 1790, 90% of American workers were farmers; today that's 2%, and a total of 11% of the workforce (including the farmers themselves) provides all the supporting infrastructure (energy, machines, pesticides, fertilizer, shipping, retail, marketing) to supply our food.
I wish more people thought about this.
You can't just draw a line on a chart, call it "reality", and let that be that. Here's actual reality [nasa.gov]. Over 0.8 degrees since 1976, not 0.2.
Where are the error bars on your chart? Real scientists post error bars.
Looking more deeply, the graph you linked to is one measurement (an estimation based on averaging land based thermometers), whereas the one I linked to shows two different satellite measurement sequences. Unless there is a way to prove that one of these is more accurate than the other, then we have to say that the error in our measurement is at least as big as the difference between the two records.
Concerning both of them: there are literally tens of thousands of climate papers out there.
Then post them. Don't rely on crap blog posts: you're better than that, I know you are.
The way I look at it,
1) "I am not a bad person just because I am fat"
2) "I have good qualities even though I am fat"
3) "People shouldn't mock fat people"
Those are all good ideas, and we should especially spread the last one. However,
1) "I am perfectly healthy even though I am fat"
There are serious problems with that idea.
The problem wasn't the slow metabolism, that just means you have to eat less. The problem was, even after eating enough to give themselves energy, they still felt hungry.
In other words, they needed the hacker's diet, which takes into consideration the fact that your hunger doesn't match your eating needs.
The main problem is that people openly mock fat people to their faces. If someone is fat, that is their problem, and we should respect them as individuals. It doesn't mean we have to date a fat person, just treat them respectfully like any other person.
Well let us look at the actual data https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... which says something very different to the preposter's suggestions.
The differences between the numbers in your link and the ones I linked to show the differences in the various ways we measure global temperature. If you are thinking that means we can't measure the global temperature perfectly accurately, then you are right.
I know there's been this contrarian myth circulating claiming that climate models predicted warming that never occurred. There's a nice, well-referenced debunking of it here [skepticalscience.com].
I see your ancient blog debunking, and raise you actual science:
Overestimating Global Warming Over the Past 20 Years
"much work remains before we can model hydroclimate variability accurately".
And here's a graph because pictures are fun!
A few month ago I looked through all available data for Germany's coal plants, and I found that since 1997, no new coal plant has been licensed
Reports I've read say the coal power increase in Germany comesfrom electricity imported from other countries. fwiw
Unfortunately, we're in a situation where the solution to AGW is to get rid of the oligarchs. Try telling that to an oligarch.
Because non-oligarchs want to pay more for gas?
The more stupid patent lawsuits we have, the more likely we will see patent reform.
Right now, none of the big guys want patent reform, because it helps them keep down competitors, and some of them make a good chunk of money from it. If we want to see patent reform, then they're going to have to start hurting. Bring on the patent trolls, I say!
Soon you will choose your phone by the content you want.
It will be a long time before that happens, because none of the content owners want it to happen. They know you will go where you have to for the hit.
a very slight chance of making it in "the Cloud".
It's hard to believe but they are rocking in the cloud; the cloud and server division is the biggest revenue maker for Microsoft. Here are better numbers.
Here's how the cloud landscape is shaping up: AWS (and to a smaller degree Google's cloud) is getting popular among startup types, and people with deeper technical knowledge. IBM's cloud is getting popular among giant fortune 500 companies that don't care about technology and just want someone else to take care of it. Microsoft's cloud is gaining popularity among boring, mid-sized businesses who just want something easy (and who frankly, probably don't need a cloud). HP is dead in the water.
Hmmmm, what Joel says here definitely supports your point.