Working in traffic lights business, we got a problem with approach similar to yours.
A smart system will synchronize lights for optimal speed on given section of the road. If you drive 50km/h as the regulations for this location say, you will stop at most once, then get green light on all crossroads along the way. But there's this long, straight section with bright traffic lights visible from a far distance.
Nope, the problem is not assholes who speed to the next lights, then stop, then race again. It's regular drivers, who upon seeing red light slow down, to get there at leisurely pace. Then the green light is lit when they are still too far. Then it ends and they arrive at the next red light. Traffic jams start forming, people complain about too short green, problems arise.
On sections where the next traffic lights aren't easily visible from afar, and a photoradar warning appears, so everyone is driving up to but not above speed limit, there are no congestions, the traffic runs fluently and only cars that got into traffic from side roads or stopped along the way get to wait.
Don't try to outsmart the machine. It's been tuned to work well with dumb humans. Smart humans break the algorithm.
Even if I get 100 or 1000 lines, it runs on the CPU at maximum speed, if I get a 2GHz CPU, it will run at roughly 2 billion "lines" per second.
Now if the code compiled to Javascript had then the Javascript run at 2,000,000,000 lines per second, as opposed to... maybe 1000? I wouldn't mind.
Now if you write clean Javascript, you can achieve miracles in 1000 lines of code. It will be a minor bump for the awesome results. But if you compile some meta-code to JS, you will achieve the same result in 300 lines of meta-code and 3000 lines of Javascript. Which will introduce a serious hiccup in user experience.
OTOH, I've seen one line of Coffeescript create a dozen of JS lines. Sure it means writing faster. But the problem with writing faster is that you spend the same amount of effort to create the same amount of lines of source, and suddenly you have five times as much of actual runtime code.
Am I the only one scared by the new trend of "languages that compile to Javascript"?
Coffeescript, Opa, there were some more.
I understand first compiling to Asembler and only then to machine code. I understand early C++ compiling to C. Various languages to bytecode... But really, while I love Javascript for many features it provides, creating yet another layer of indirection on top of it seems to serve only one purpose: boost sales of faster hardware...
This would be true for a very straightforward, simplistic API: initialize(), a whole bunch of very simple tool functions, some kind of flush() and optionally end().
But if the API suggests use of some clever design pattern, if it operates on original abstract ideas, has some automagic features that cleverly work around the language's shortcomings, expands the language syntax (e.g. through clever use of templates), cleverly automates or streamlines tasks that would have to be called in sequence - generally, goes out of the way to be more than just a dumb connector - then it's definitely a creative work and mere reshuffling and cleanup won't change that.
The other post writes about cookbooks. Yes, as long as the recipe is simple, generic "add, stir, bake, flip, chop", it's all right to just slightly modify it. But if the recipe first describes gently spraying the dough with liquid nitrogen starting from the corners, then drilling holes in a precise hexagonal pattern, pouring a matching cover of liquid tin to form airtight seal and then placing it in induction oven - then plain replacing the pattern with pentagonal will not really void your copyright on the recipe...
You can also copyright header files that define these APIs. And the files would "enjoy" the same protection as books and such - mere renaming of everything, shuffling the order around or changing comments, without actually breaking the gist - the underlying concept - will be recognized as plagiarism. As long as your file does, every single thing the original file does, you're clearly in the black.
This is bad. Oracle has a solid point here. Of course asserting copyright on API is both extremely stupid and extremely evil. APIs fundamental purpose is to be open.
Reverse-engineering is different here. You take an observed behavior and write code that seems to do the same thing. You don't really know if it does the same thing. If it does, good for you, but you create it from scratch and are never completely sure if you missed anything. Not a copy but a replacement. You got a lock, old and worn, and you make a key that fits that lock. The key will be unique and possibly quite different from the original - some stuck tumbler will be missed, some worn one will have a different depth, another will barely fit within tolerances.
OTOH, API must conform to specs. You get the specs of the lock and the key, and you create a key that follows the specs exactly. It will be an identical copy of the original one. The fact not one is a copy of the other but they both are derived strictly and exactly from the same abstract data is moot here.
If the book has the same layout of chapters, follows with the same progression of descriptions paragraph by paragraph, it is a plagiarism and copyright infringement. Neither translation to a different language nor rewording of paragraphs of the book while retaining the same information in the same (non-obvious) order are releasing you from the burden of copyright.
If the new company is formed in some foreign country lacking major treaties with the US, this works surprisingly well. If the new company is older than yours and "bought you out", all the better (so what if it was a garage repair shop for cash registers back then).
Oh, I haven't noticed the thing at the end of your post, "the show you haven't watched as a kid". Nope. Most of Bronies didn't watch original MLP or at most watched a couple episodes and gave up. The general consensus is that the old show sucked bad. There are crossover fanfics that mock the old show mercilessly. You absolutely don't need to have watched the old show, and you'd get weird looks if you said you liked it... because, honestly, it WAS bad, even for a kids show.
You got the old preconception of "hidden concept aimed at adults". While MLP has some cultural references, it remains quite tame both on the obvious and non-obvious layer. The hidden part is in "inconsistencies". There are some not-quite-obvious plot holes. Parts, where a character could act, according to the archetype they represent, and prevent all the trouble, yet they didn't and hilarity occurs. And later in the show, similarly inconsistent behavior on the part of the character is displayed with a little more visibility. And near the end, in all obviousness. And as you begin to notice the archetype is a facade for a completely different archetype, suddenly the old events click into place, and the behavior becomes not an awkward omission, but very a intentional act, that adds a whole new layer on the old episode, the story completely retold with a twist.
Just to say the gentle and wise Princess Celestia fully deserved the brony nickname "Trollestia".
That's for equal chance. We all know certainty was not to be expected but I seriously wonder how probability scales, for chance 1/x in x tries, for large numbers.
How? Using my legs. I avoid walking on hands, I choose a bicycle over a monocycle when riding to work, I tend to sit down in a bus instead of trying to stand on top of a ball, and I choose to walk on the sidewalk instead of trying to balance on the barrier along the middle of the motorway.
There were quite a few landing attempts using rocket thruster brakes on Mars, and about all failed. Two airbag landings succeeded. Basing on current experience, I wouldn't say this one has the best chance for success.
Mars 2: crash Mars 3: too hard touchdown resulting in fault, essentially crash. Mars 6: crash Viking 1: success Viking 2: success Mars Polar Lander: Crash Deep Space 2: crash Beagle 2: crash Phoenix: success
3 successes in 9 tries. 33% success rate.
Yet they insist on the method that fails twice as often as succeeds, and disregard the one that didn't fail even once by now.
I bet it will crash. Too complex, too many points of failure.
If the chance of failure of a part of the system is one in a million, in a system consisting of a million parts something WILL break. --Stanislaw Lem.
Also, did they do away with solar cells? I guess they don't want to risk another runaway project that extends a decade beyond schedule "because it failed to break".
Do search these stories. The approach is "guilty unless proven innocent" and you pay every dime for your defense. They don't fight to win in court, they fight to intimidate you into paying or ruin you fighting. It's a mafia tactic. It's not about collecting their rightful dues, it's about exortion racket. If you are very dedicated and skilled, you will win, but almost certainly the victory will cost you more in legal fees than just paying up, and they will walk away unharmed, no return of court costs to you...
Water evaporating from clothes. Arrange for fire service to spray people with water from the trucks. This is quite common in outdoor festivals - the car moving very slowly through the crowd, and firemen pouring a mist of water over the crowd. This suffices for a hour or so, can be repeated as needed. Also, if anyone faints, or feels otherwise ill, they can be handed over to the fire truck to be taken out to a medical station..
Otherwise, if you can't get cars, just get a bottle of water for yourself and pour it over yourself from time to time.
You should read some horror stories about that. While the law is on the bar's side, they often coerce the management into paying with threats of simply driving them to bankruptcy through legal expenses. And yes, they can do this. The quote was something along the lines "If any 4 chords in a row in your song match up with any 4 chords in a row in any of songs we own, this counts as plagiarism and you'll pay damages and costs. So do you pay the fee, or should we match up your playlist against our library of several million song?" (and if still not convinced, proceed to explain the costs of the match-up search and likehood of finding a match, and need to cover the costs of the match-up search as costs in case a match is found...)
And if you pay only music released as Creative Commons? Theoretically, you shouldn't have to pay. Practically, they'll sue you into ground before you manage to prove you're innocent. So pay or get sued. Or don't play at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Working in traffic lights business, we got a problem with approach similar to yours.
A smart system will synchronize lights for optimal speed on given section of the road. If you drive 50km/h as the regulations for this location say, you will stop at most once, then get green light on all crossroads along the way. But there's this long, straight section with bright traffic lights visible from a far distance.
Nope, the problem is not assholes who speed to the next lights, then stop, then race again.
It's regular drivers, who upon seeing red light slow down, to get there at leisurely pace. Then the green light is lit when they are still too far. Then it ends and they arrive at the next red light. Traffic jams start forming, people complain about too short green, problems arise.
On sections where the next traffic lights aren't easily visible from afar, and a photoradar warning appears, so everyone is driving up to but not above speed limit, there are no congestions, the traffic runs fluently and only cars that got into traffic from side roads or stopped along the way get to wait.
Don't try to outsmart the machine. It's been tuned to work well with dumb humans. Smart humans break the algorithm.
Even if I get 100 or 1000 lines, it runs on the CPU at maximum speed, if I get a 2GHz CPU, it will run at roughly 2 billion "lines" per second.
Now if the code compiled to Javascript had then the Javascript run at 2,000,000,000 lines per second, as opposed to... maybe 1000? I wouldn't mind.
Now if you write clean Javascript, you can achieve miracles in 1000 lines of code. It will be a minor bump for the awesome results.
But if you compile some meta-code to JS, you will achieve the same result in 300 lines of meta-code and 3000 lines of Javascript. Which will introduce a serious hiccup in user experience.
OTOH, I've seen one line of Coffeescript create a dozen of JS lines. Sure it means writing faster. But the problem with writing faster is that you spend the same amount of effort to create the same amount of lines of source, and suddenly you have five times as much of actual runtime code.
Am I the only one scared by the new trend of "languages that compile to Javascript"?
Coffeescript, Opa, there were some more.
I understand first compiling to Asembler and only then to machine code. I understand early C++ compiling to C. Various languages to bytecode...
But really, while I love Javascript for many features it provides, creating yet another layer of indirection on top of it seems to serve only one purpose: boost sales of faster hardware...
You've got two more questions before I cancel this purchase.
At third useless question, say "Purchase cancelled", take your money, return the box.
This would be true for a very straightforward, simplistic API: initialize(), a whole bunch of very simple tool functions, some kind of flush() and optionally end().
But if the API suggests use of some clever design pattern, if it operates on original abstract ideas, has some automagic features that cleverly work around the language's shortcomings, expands the language syntax (e.g. through clever use of templates), cleverly automates or streamlines tasks that would have to be called in sequence - generally, goes out of the way to be more than just a dumb connector - then it's definitely a creative work and mere reshuffling and cleanup won't change that.
The other post writes about cookbooks. Yes, as long as the recipe is simple, generic "add, stir, bake, flip, chop", it's all right to just slightly modify it. But if the recipe first describes gently spraying the dough with liquid nitrogen starting from the corners, then drilling holes in a precise hexagonal pattern, pouring a matching cover of liquid tin to form airtight seal and then placing it in induction oven - then plain replacing the pattern with pentagonal will not really void your copyright on the recipe...
You can also copyright header files that define these APIs. And the files would "enjoy" the same protection as books and such - mere renaming of everything, shuffling the order around or changing comments, without actually breaking the gist - the underlying concept - will be recognized as plagiarism. As long as your file does, every single thing the original file does, you're clearly in the black.
This is bad. Oracle has a solid point here.
Of course asserting copyright on API is both extremely stupid and extremely evil. APIs fundamental purpose is to be open.
Reverse-engineering is different here. You take an observed behavior and write code that seems to do the same thing. You don't really know if it does the same thing. If it does, good for you, but you create it from scratch and are never completely sure if you missed anything. Not a copy but a replacement. You got a lock, old and worn, and you make a key that fits that lock. The key will be unique and possibly quite different from the original - some stuck tumbler will be missed, some worn one will have a different depth, another will barely fit within tolerances.
OTOH, API must conform to specs. You get the specs of the lock and the key, and you create a key that follows the specs exactly. It will be an identical copy of the original one. The fact not one is a copy of the other but they both are derived strictly and exactly from the same abstract data is moot here.
If the book has the same layout of chapters, follows with the same progression of descriptions paragraph by paragraph, it is a plagiarism and copyright infringement. Neither translation to a different language nor rewording of paragraphs of the book while retaining the same information in the same (non-obvious) order are releasing you from the burden of copyright.
loosers
Ha! You almost got me with this one!=digest&topic_id=4776&forum=34
I doubt there's content gruesome enough in the entire Internet to shake the seasoned Anonymous.
They have testimony of a former employee.
While it isn't much, and unlikely to be enough to win, it may be quite enough to start a lawsuit.
If the new company is formed in some foreign country lacking major treaties with the US, this works surprisingly well.
If the new company is older than yours and "bought you out", all the better (so what if it was a garage repair shop for cash registers back then).
Oh, I haven't noticed the thing at the end of your post, "the show you haven't watched as a kid". Nope. Most of Bronies didn't watch original MLP or at most watched a couple episodes and gave up. The general consensus is that the old show sucked bad. There are crossover fanfics that mock the old show mercilessly. You absolutely don't need to have watched the old show, and you'd get weird looks if you said you liked it... because, honestly, it WAS bad, even for a kids show.
You got the old preconception of "hidden concept aimed at adults". While MLP has some cultural references, it remains quite tame both on the obvious and non-obvious layer. The hidden part is in "inconsistencies". There are some not-quite-obvious plot holes. Parts, where a character could act, according to the archetype they represent, and prevent all the trouble, yet they didn't and hilarity occurs. And later in the show, similarly inconsistent behavior on the part of the character is displayed with a little more visibility. And near the end, in all obviousness. And as you begin to notice the archetype is a facade for a completely different archetype, suddenly the old events click into place, and the behavior becomes not an awkward omission, but very a intentional act, that adds a whole new layer on the old episode, the story completely retold with a twist.
Just to say the gentle and wise Princess Celestia fully deserved the brony nickname "Trollestia".
If you want it to hit Washington, then definitely yes. Russians have that variant covered to perfection.
That's for equal chance. We all know certainty was not to be expected but I seriously wonder how probability scales, for chance 1/x in x tries, for large numbers.
How? Using my legs. I avoid walking on hands, I choose a bicycle over a monocycle when riding to work, I tend to sit down in a bus instead of trying to stand on top of a ball, and I choose to walk on the sidewalk instead of trying to balance on the barrier along the middle of the motorway.
There were quite a few landing attempts using rocket thruster brakes on Mars, and about all failed. Two airbag landings succeeded. Basing on current experience, I wouldn't say this one has the best chance for success.
Look, we got one Mars landing method that got 3 successes for 3 tries, 100% success rate.
Pathfinder: success
Spirit: success
Opportunity: success
We got another method that got...
Mars 2: crash
Mars 3: too hard touchdown resulting in fault, essentially crash.
Mars 6: crash
Viking 1: success
Viking 2: success
Mars Polar Lander: Crash
Deep Space 2: crash
Beagle 2: crash
Phoenix: success
3 successes in 9 tries. 33% success rate.
Yet they insist on the method that fails twice as often as succeeds, and disregard the one that didn't fail even once by now.
I bet it will crash. Too complex, too many points of failure.
If the chance of failure of a part of the system is one in a million, in a system consisting of a million parts something WILL break. --Stanislaw Lem.
Also, did they do away with solar cells? I guess they don't want to risk another runaway project that extends a decade beyond schedule "because it failed to break".
Why doesn't anyone report him to ACLU to have him disbarred for fraudulent litigation?
On Steam:
Borderlands: €5
4 DLC packs: 4x €2 each = €6
Borderlands GOTY edition (game + 4 DLC) €12 ...wtf?
Do search these stories. The approach is "guilty unless proven innocent" and you pay every dime for your defense. They don't fight to win in court, they fight to intimidate you into paying or ruin you fighting. It's a mafia tactic. It's not about collecting their rightful dues, it's about exortion racket. If you are very dedicated and skilled, you will win, but almost certainly the victory will cost you more in legal fees than just paying up, and they will walk away unharmed, no return of court costs to you...
Water evaporating from clothes. Arrange for fire service to spray people with water from the trucks. This is quite common in outdoor festivals - the car moving very slowly through the crowd, and firemen pouring a mist of water over the crowd. This suffices for a hour or so, can be repeated as needed. Also, if anyone faints, or feels otherwise ill, they can be handed over to the fire truck to be taken out to a medical station..
Otherwise, if you can't get cars, just get a bottle of water for yourself and pour it over yourself from time to time.
You should read some horror stories about that. While the law is on the bar's side, they often coerce the management into paying with threats of simply driving them to bankruptcy through legal expenses. And yes, they can do this. The quote was something along the lines "If any 4 chords in a row in your song match up with any 4 chords in a row in any of songs we own, this counts as plagiarism and you'll pay damages and costs. So do you pay the fee, or should we match up your playlist against our library of several million song?" (and if still not convinced, proceed to explain the costs of the match-up search and likehood of finding a match, and need to cover the costs of the match-up search as costs in case a match is found...)
And if you pay only music released as Creative Commons?
Theoretically, you shouldn't have to pay.
Practically, they'll sue you into ground before you manage to prove you're innocent. So pay or get sued. Or don't play at all.