Not the same - Dalvik (and now ART) use different bytecodes for their executables, they have to translate Java bytecodes to their native code, not just a different executable format.
So just because Dalvik converts Java source into register-based bytecode whereas the default Java bytecode is stack-based (FORTH-like), that means Dalvik is something completely different from Java? Sorry, I don't think so because the various concepts of references, packages, GC, interfaces, single-parent inheritance etc. are directly copied from Java. Despite the implementation differences, Dalvik is still a derivative of Sun/Oracle's Java.
Android programs may be mostly source-compatible with Java, but the compiled programs are absolutely NOT. You cannot take a program from Android and run it in any JVM.
Nice try, Google shill. I can create a compiler that takes standard C files and generates non-standard.obj/.lib/.dll/.o files that don't inter-operate with any other compiler/linker. My compiler is still a C compiler even though it not compatible with other C compilers/linkers/runtimes.
Google needs to discard the "information wants to be free" mantra. That saying is only suitable for cheap-o pirates, not multi-billion corps.
The notion that APIs are copyrightable is bullshit, because APIs describe what is done, not how it is done.
If that were true, there would be only ONE set of APIs for any specific area of computing. But there are dozens if not hundreds such API sets. The subtle reality is that APIs describe not only what is to be done, but also how (to some extent) and what other classes/objects are needed to perform a task.
The combination of these things make API design a creative effort and as such should be copyrightable.
Stop spreading misinformation! Android apps use the Java language and the Java API. Just the VM is reimplemented as Dalvik... but the apps are still Java.
Anyone know why Oracle is not suing for Google's use of the Java language? Are languages not copyrighted?
Google should have paid the $200 million or so initially to license it legally from Sun, instead they played all these games to save a tiny bit of money. Everyone knows how valuable Android is today, and how useful Java is to make Android run. So expect Google to pay $2 to $5 billion.
Hacking even poorly done security systems is a lot more effort than stealing physical keys.
Yes, but you have to be close to the physical keys to steal them and that's difficult depending on where the owner of the keys is. By comparison, millions of hackers around the world can hack into your smartphone car keys. You make it sound difficult, when any smartphone has tens of thousands of bugs hackers can exploit.
you can't imagine how convenient it is to just walk up to locked car, open the door and drive away without digging out a ring of keys.
Wouldn't it be even more convenient if the doors had no locks at all? No need to worry about keys at all. The point of security and keys is to trade convenience for security... more the security, higher the inconvenience.
BTW, if you're at a gas station and outside the car but close enough for the car to detect the key, wouldn't this be enough for a thief to enter the car and drive away?
why do the vast majority of people still buy a car?
Because it's cheaper. You don't have to pay for the driver, you don't have to pay the cab company the driver rented the car from and of course there's profit. Taxi companies/drivers make profit well above the costs and you have to pay for that as well. Even if the driver cost is eliminated, the profit the cab companies demand will still make the price higher than owning a car.
If the above statements are false, people would stop buying cars and get rides from ride-sharing services thereby saving insurance costs, huge liability costs in severe accidents and parking hassles.
Hosting can be paid for with ads or a small fee for ad-haters, just like the rest of low-cost/cheap content on the internet.
The issue no one is discussing is why do only these journals have exclusive rights to publish these papers? Who gave them this right since they didn't pay for the content? If they don't have exclusive rights, anyone can upload the paper to the internet, like the Russian lady did.
It's quite ridiculous the journal industry makes $10 billion/year while the authors/scientists who publish and peer-review the papers do it for free. Slavery is well and alive.
Java is shit, shit. Tripple shit, has always been shit... Android converts Java code into Davlik
BS! Dalvik is just another implementation of Java VM. Android apps are Java -- java language, java API, java VM concepts/features. Just having a different VM implementation does not negate the fact that it's java code. Stop appropriating other people's technology, making small changes, relabeling it and calling it new and novel.
LOL, you can't patent things found in nature. Try harder, Mr. anti-patent troll.
Utility patents protect the core concepts behind a man-made invention. If a human being creates an invention, he/she owns it, not you, not leeches, not nature and not the government.
Automated cars, by their very definition, remove the need to turn a steering wheel, pedals, etc.
In the most common cases only. This tech has not even been proven and you already think the steering wheel should be removed. What a joke.
Your arguments about government control over your transport apply now to non-automated cars, as the government can stop your car going wherever it wants by physically stopping you,
Not true. It would a ridiculous amount of money in manpower today, so it's not practical. With automated cars, the consumer is paying for the tech to restrict/track his movement... kinda like a buying a (shiny) noose to hang yourself.
Once you learn driving, it's a simple enough task slightly adjusting the wheel to keep the car in the lane and turning occasionally. Most people drive less than an hour or two per day. So I'm not sure what problem automated cars are supposed to solve. But if you want you can use it. I just want the freedom to avoid such cars.
Facebook and other social media are used for background checks in jobs. Do you want to your (potential) employer to view every place you have visited in your car for the last 10 years? Thanks, but no thanks.
Really? One aspect of freedom is associated with control. Automated cars remove a lot of control from the user and moves it to some central authority. At that point, the user has to beg (to deaf ears) for any additional benefits. Can't wait for the day when your automated car refuses to go to a particular destination because some central authority deemed it so.
If the govt./google etc. are so concerned with safety, they should provide a wider range of taxi/bus services that are heavily subsidized instead of redefining cars.
How much bandwidth do you need to download a key since the content is already on the disc? I think a dial-up connection would be sufficient for decryption.
But isn't there a privacy/tracking issue here? Every time you play that blu-ray, some marketeer or someone else is tracking what you are watching. Nobody consulted the public before making decisions for them?
Websites grow on trees. Wait, lemme check... they definitely don't.
So if the site owner does not get paid by leeches like yourself, there is no point in developing and operating a website. So yes, in a way, it is your problem. In the near term, expect adblockers to be blocked from accessing ad-based websites.
That's like the yahoo! homepage that randomly mixes article headlines and ads. The ads have a light blue background color, but unless you correctly angle your screen, the background color looks white, like the article headline's background. Both headlines and ads have the same look and format.
How the heck can companies get away with such blatant deception?
If the search is reasonable, I'm not seeing the hangup.
While this search may be reasonable, creating a backdoor will give technology to the government that can be used in other cases, where the rights "against unreasonable searches" may be violated.
From TFA:
Creating the backdoor access, the executives said, would put at risk the privacy of millions of users. It would not only serve to unlock one specific phone, they said, but create a sort of master key that could be used to access any number of devices. The government says the access being sought could only be used on this one phone, but Apple's executives noted that there is widespread interest in an iPhone backdoor, noting that Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance said Thursday that his office has 175 Apple devices he'd like cracked.
Even if you eliminated all the thousands of software and hardware bugs (yeah, right), online voting will strip vote anonymity. No anon coward votes means a useless election with useless, coerced votes.
Also, a small group of admins running the voting servers can change everyone's votes. So, no thanks. To do that with paper ballots would require a much bigger group of conspirators so it's more difficult.
Let's the manufacturers don't cheap out, like they did with CDs and DVDs, and expose the glass to human touch. Even 1.44" floppies had a plastic/metal cover protecting the delicate media.
Uber will take no responsibility for anything negative at all
Many know about the overcharging. But does Uber fare better or worse compared to taxis if the UberTaxi is involved in an accident and the passenger is injured?
You are again completely mistaken. Even the paid-for journals have long ago bowed to the inevitable and have a contract clause which allows academics to give away copies of their papers for free, provided it's the preprint formatting.
But the paper being copied here by the Russian are post-print (from the journals), not preprint. And I would like to see a link to that clause you're mentioning.
I'm now arguing that you are arguing dishonestly.
You're the dishonest one here, claiming the journal publisher has no rights to profit because you should be able to access the papers for free.
A small fee?? Are you off your rocker? It's incredible how you have such very strong opinions on something you clearly know absolutely nothing about!
Are you pissed you have spend a dollar on something valuable? This site chock full of freeloaders/pirates like you who think information should be free. Even if the DMV is funded by taxpayers, you still have to pay for the services offered. Likewise, running a webservice has a lot of operational expenses that someone has to pay.
It's almost as if youve already decided that piracy==theft is correct and no amount of evidence of situations where piracy has demonstrably different properties from theft is going to dent your attitude in the slightest.
What evidence? Infinite reproducibility of IP goods is not proof. You have offered 0 evidence that pirates are not thieves (which they are).
Someone offers you an IP good that improves your life but you offer nothing in return. That is theft since the IP good is offered as a commercial product.
But it still makes your equating of piracy and theft completely wrong because I've given you a situation where you are demonstrably completely wrong and yet you keep arguing from a position of utter ignorance.
You're applying this rare situation (researchers not making a profit on papers) to apply to all IP related products, which seems quite dishonest.
Whether it's a physical good or IP good, both require considerable genius and technical talent (and their expense) to bring to the market. So yes, if you access the IP without paying anything to its creator it is theft because the creator gets nothing for the time and expense of creating the IP good and you get to leech value without returning the favor (technically theft). It may be hard for you to understand simple things because you may be heavily involved in the activity of pirating stuff.
And why exactly are scientists giving the papers to JSTOR to publish, and not you? You need to question them and get the papers legally instead of acting like a greedy 10-year old kid yelling, "my money, my papers!"
Slashdot Mirror
So just because Dalvik converts Java source into register-based bytecode whereas the default Java bytecode is stack-based (FORTH-like), that means Dalvik is something completely different from Java? Sorry, I don't think so because the various concepts of references, packages, GC, interfaces, single-parent inheritance etc. are directly copied from Java. Despite the implementation differences, Dalvik is still a derivative of Sun/Oracle's Java.
Nice try, Google shill. I can create a compiler that takes standard C files and generates non-standard .obj/.lib/.dll/.o files that don't inter-operate with any other compiler/linker. My compiler is still a C compiler even though it not compatible with other C compilers/linkers/runtimes.
Google needs to discard the "information wants to be free" mantra. That saying is only suitable for cheap-o pirates, not multi-billion corps.
If that were true, there would be only ONE set of APIs for any specific area of computing. But there are dozens if not hundreds such API sets. The subtle reality is that APIs describe not only what is to be done, but also how (to some extent) and what other classes/objects are needed to perform a task.
The combination of these things make API design a creative effort and as such should be copyrightable.
Stop spreading misinformation! Android apps use the Java language and the Java API. Just the VM is reimplemented as Dalvik... but the apps are still Java.
Anyone know why Oracle is not suing for Google's use of the Java language? Are languages not copyrighted?
Google should have paid the $200 million or so initially to license it legally from Sun, instead they played all these games to save a tiny bit of money. Everyone knows how valuable Android is today, and how useful Java is to make Android run. So expect Google to pay $2 to $5 billion.
Yes, but you have to be close to the physical keys to steal them and that's difficult depending on where the owner of the keys is. By comparison, millions of hackers around the world can hack into your smartphone car keys. You make it sound difficult, when any smartphone has tens of thousands of bugs hackers can exploit.
Isn't Visual Studio free for open source projects?
Wouldn't it be even more convenient if the doors had no locks at all? No need to worry about keys at all. The point of security and keys is to trade convenience for security... more the security, higher the inconvenience.
BTW, if you're at a gas station and outside the car but close enough for the car to detect the key, wouldn't this be enough for a thief to enter the car and drive away?
why do the vast majority of people still buy a car?
Because it's cheaper. You don't have to pay for the driver, you don't have to pay the cab company the driver rented the car from and of course there's profit. Taxi companies/drivers make profit well above the costs and you have to pay for that as well. Even if the driver cost is eliminated, the profit the cab companies demand will still make the price higher than owning a car.
If the above statements are false, people would stop buying cars and get rides from ride-sharing services thereby saving insurance costs, huge liability costs in severe accidents and parking hassles.
This is the only valid reason... the others don't apply if you didn't pay for the research.
Hosting can be paid for with ads or a small fee for ad-haters, just like the rest of low-cost/cheap content on the internet.
The issue no one is discussing is why do only these journals have exclusive rights to publish these papers? Who gave them this right since they didn't pay for the content? If they don't have exclusive rights, anyone can upload the paper to the internet, like the Russian lady did.
It's quite ridiculous the journal industry makes $10 billion/year while the authors/scientists who publish and peer-review the papers do it for free. Slavery is well and alive.
Java is shit, shit. Tripple shit, has always been shit... Android converts Java code into Davlik
BS! Dalvik is just another implementation of Java VM. Android apps are Java -- java language, java API, java VM concepts/features. Just having a different VM implementation does not negate the fact that it's java code. Stop appropriating other people's technology, making small changes, relabeling it and calling it new and novel.
LOL, you can't patent things found in nature. Try harder, Mr. anti-patent troll.
Utility patents protect the core concepts behind a man-made invention. If a human being creates an invention, he/she owns it, not you, not leeches, not nature and not the government.
In the most common cases only. This tech has not even been proven and you already think the steering wheel should be removed. What a joke.
Not true. It would a ridiculous amount of money in manpower today, so it's not practical. With automated cars, the consumer is paying for the tech to restrict/track his movement... kinda like a buying a (shiny) noose to hang yourself.
Once you learn driving, it's a simple enough task slightly adjusting the wheel to keep the car in the lane and turning occasionally. Most people drive less than an hour or two per day. So I'm not sure what problem automated cars are supposed to solve. But if you want you can use it. I just want the freedom to avoid such cars.
Facebook and other social media are used for background checks in jobs. Do you want to your (potential) employer to view every place you have visited in your car for the last 10 years? Thanks, but no thanks.
Really? One aspect of freedom is associated with control. Automated cars remove a lot of control from the user and moves it to some central authority. At that point, the user has to beg (to deaf ears) for any additional benefits. Can't wait for the day when your automated car refuses to go to a particular destination because some central authority deemed it so.
If the govt./google etc. are so concerned with safety, they should provide a wider range of taxi/bus services that are heavily subsidized instead of redefining cars.
How much bandwidth do you need to download a key since the content is already on the disc? I think a dial-up connection would be sufficient for decryption.
But isn't there a privacy/tracking issue here? Every time you play that blu-ray, some marketeer or someone else is tracking what you are watching. Nobody consulted the public before making decisions for them?
Websites grow on trees. Wait, lemme check... they definitely don't.
So if the site owner does not get paid by leeches like yourself, there is no point in developing and operating a website. So yes, in a way, it is your problem. In the near term, expect adblockers to be blocked from accessing ad-based websites.
That's like the yahoo! homepage that randomly mixes article headlines and ads. The ads have a light blue background color, but unless you correctly angle your screen, the background color looks white, like the article headline's background. Both headlines and ads have the same look and format.
How the heck can companies get away with such blatant deception?
While this search may be reasonable, creating a backdoor will give technology to the government that can be used in other cases, where the rights "against unreasonable searches" may be violated.
From TFA:
Even if you eliminated all the thousands of software and hardware bugs (yeah, right), online voting will strip vote anonymity. No anon coward votes means a useless election with useless, coerced votes.
Also, a small group of admins running the voting servers can change everyone's votes. So, no thanks. To do that with paper ballots would require a much bigger group of conspirators so it's more difficult.
Let's the manufacturers don't cheap out, like they did with CDs and DVDs, and expose the glass to human touch. Even 1.44" floppies had a plastic/metal cover protecting the delicate media.
Many know about the overcharging. But does Uber fare better or worse compared to taxis if the UberTaxi is involved in an accident and the passenger is injured?
But the paper being copied here by the Russian are post-print (from the journals), not preprint. And I would like to see a link to that clause you're mentioning.
You're the dishonest one here, claiming the journal publisher has no rights to profit because you should be able to access the papers for free.
Are you pissed you have spend a dollar on something valuable? This site chock full of freeloaders/pirates like you who think information should be free. Even if the DMV is funded by taxpayers, you still have to pay for the services offered. Likewise, running a webservice has a lot of operational expenses that someone has to pay.
What evidence? Infinite reproducibility of IP goods is not proof. You have offered 0 evidence that pirates are not thieves (which they are).
Someone offers you an IP good that improves your life but you offer nothing in return. That is theft since the IP good is offered as a commercial product.
You're applying this rare situation (researchers not making a profit on papers) to apply to all IP related products, which seems quite dishonest.
Whether it's a physical good or IP good, both require considerable genius and technical talent (and their expense) to bring to the market. So yes, if you access the IP without paying anything to its creator it is theft because the creator gets nothing for the time and expense of creating the IP good and you get to leech value without returning the favor (technically theft). It may be hard for you to understand simple things because you may be heavily involved in the activity of pirating stuff.
And why exactly are scientists giving the papers to JSTOR to publish, and not you? You need to question them and get the papers legally instead of acting like a greedy 10-year old kid yelling, "my money, my papers!"