Actually, you're partially correct. The TCK consists of three parts - the JT Harness, SigTest and the Spec Trac Tool. The JT Harness and SigTest are open source - both licensed under GPLv2. https://jtharness.dev.java.net/ and https://sigtest.dev.java.net/
Only the Spec Trac Tool is closed source and available only to JCP members. Of course, this is sort of a mute point since all three TCK components are needed to pass the compatibility test. However, it is an important point lest one get the impression that Oracle simply wants to protect their proprietary TCK, when a good portion of it was contributed by the open source community. It is interesting however that Sun obtained the patents in question (not Oracle) and never tried to enforce them against Google, then Oracle comes along, buys Sun and immediately goes after Google. Some might think that puts Oracle in the unsavory position of being a patent troll. Oracle's current stance on dropping the field-of-use restrictions is inconsistent with their stance a couple of years ago when they supported Apache's request to Sun to have them lifted.
Also,
only available under the condition that you don't release your clean-room implementation of Java as open source
is not quite true. In fact, if you do develop a clean-room implementation (and assuming you were able to get TCK certification) you are forced to (via the terms of GPLv2) release your implementation under the GPLv2 license. This is where Harmony has a problem. Their (Apache) license is not compatible with GPLv2.
Yeah, Except why would Google want to keep Dalvik if it infringes Java patents? If you're replacing one VM with another, why not the Python VM? If they can do Python to Java Bytecodes, why not the other way round? Then people who hate Python's syntax could keep developing in the Java language with the Python VM, and you probably could also get a pretty big level of backwards compatibility.
The patents in question could just as easily apply to a Python VM. If it were that easy, Google could just rewrite the "patent offending" portions of the Dalvik VM (assuming there are any). The Dalvik VM is drastically different than a standard JVM (i.e. Dalvik is register based while JVM is stack based, Dalvik uses a drastically different executable format, very much unlike the JVM class format, etc). The problem is that the patents are broad enough that they can apply to nearly any VM.
The main point I was trying to make is that the source language is not at issue, it's the VM. Whether it's a Python or Java compiler that generates the byte-code is immaterial to the issue.
This issue (internet freedom) been festering for years and it's been eroding faster and faster along the way. We might has well rip the scab off and debate this out in the open.
My (feeble) understanding is that the Java license grants the right for anyone to develop their own "clean room" implementation of the JavaSE platform, but to claim it to be "Java compatible", it must pass the TCK certification. However, in order to test for compatibility against the TCK, one must license the it from Oracle. Since Oracle refuses to license the TCK, the effect is that no one can legally claim Java compatibility. It's sort of a catch-22. One of project Harmony's stated goals was to be Java compatible, but without the TCK, it's illegal for them to make that claim.
Most (if not all) of Oracle's patent infringement claims are directed to the Dalvik VM. This has nothing to do with the language used. In fact, if you like Python, you can use Jython on the JVM (and hence on the Dalvik VM) today. Same goes for Ruby (JRuby), Elang (Eljang) as well as several other languages.
Java (OpenJDK) is licensed under GPLv2. This is a fact, and most (reasonable people) would consider this open source.
http://openjdk.java.net/legal/
Sun kept the field of use restrictions in place to keep anyone (e.g. Microsoft) from forking it and fragmenting the community. Unfortunately Oracle has chosen to use this to try and strong-arm Google and get their piece of the mobile market (since JavaME was such a dismal failure). Google is no saint, it's true, but in my view they are far less "evil" than Oracle.
Pay up? For what? Java is Open-source. The Java license grants everyone the right to develop their own "clean-room" implementation of Java and it grants use of the patents involved free-of-charge. The Oracle/Google dispute is really over two things: 1) Oracle claims Google is infringing several patents in the Delvik VM. 2) The Android platform contains copyrighted source code. On the first point, Google disputes that the patents are valid, they don't infringe them, the patents are open-sourced, Oracle(as Sun) waited too long to go to court and Oracle is not being damaged by their use. On the second point, the supposed "copyrighted material" was part of a set of compatibility testing tools (not part of the TCK) and is not part of the standard Android SDK.
I agree that this has nothing to do with the other Apache libraries. Where I took exception with the parent was the single statement that most people do not use this project. This project (and the way Oracle dealt with it) indirectly had a great deal of bearing on Apache's decision to leave the JCP.
While resorting to name calling is the sign of a weak mind and/or weak argument, it's apparent from the rest of your post that you, my friend are the one with an intelligence deficit.
For that reason, I'll spell this out as if you were completely clueless (which nothing in your post would indicate otherwise).
You are wrong on so many levels, it's hard to know where to start, but I'll give it a shot.
First, Java was not a temporary measure for Android. Among other things, Java is a computer language. Android applications are written in the Java language. Even if Google declares Go the "blessed" language for developing on the Android, they will continue to support Java since nearly all applications up to that point will have been written in Java.
Second, Android is open-sourced (under the Apache license) and is not owned by Google. While they do have a great deal of control over it (mostly by way of their dominant influence in the project), they are part of the Open Handset Alliance which controls the project.
Third, while I will grant you, Google does not need Java (however you defined "need" here), a statement like "Google does not like Java" is a completely nonsensical statement. I don't even know what it means for a corporation to "like" something. Google adopted the Java language because it immediately gave them an immense base of software already written that could be ported to the Android platform. Google's continued development and investment into the platform (Android SDK, GWT, acquisition of Instantiations) show no sign of abating.
Fourth, Google's response (to the Northern California District Court) regarding the Oracle suit makes the following points:
The patents weren’t valid
Android didn’t infringe on the patents
The patents had been open-sourced
Oracle waited too long to bring the suit, and
Oracle has no right to sue since it’s not being damaged by Android.
What part of "The patents weren't valid" do you not understand?
Fifth, as far as their "own" language (Go), only time will tell how popular it becomes. According to the Tiobe index ( http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html ), which tracks computer language popularity, in 2009 Go had just surpassed Pascal in popularity moving to #15, but in 2010 it has dropped to #25. Java has been #1 since the index started (in 2002) and it's rating increased again in 2010 by 0.14%. If Go is to replace Java, it' better get "go"ing.
Finally, my advice to you is to see a therapist about your obvious superiority complex.
For Java, it means what has been speculated all along has now been confirmed, that Java is NOT an open standard and is in fact controlled by one company, Oracle. This was of course, the same situation while under the control of Sun, but Sun was a bit less "evil" in that they did not enforce the restrictions. Not surprisingly, Oracle is a different beast. It's too early to tell what the long term implications will be, but a lot has to do with the outcome of the Oracle/Google case.
This of course, brings us to Android. Depending on the outcome of the Oracle/Google legal maneuvering, Android could be killed off (or retooled to remove Harmony from the equation), or Oracle's restrictions and/or patents could be vacated. Most likely the result will be something in between, where Android lives on, but is subject to the indirect control of Oracle. Of course, the IDEAL situation (the one I'm rooting for) is that Google wins. This would, in effect free Java from Oracle's greedy control and allow Android to develop into the truly remarkable platform it has the potential to become.
(Disclaimer: IANAL nor a tech analyst and I have no particular insight, other than I tend to follow this story, so my views are my own as a simple small time developer).
No, it has to do with Android of which a portion is based on Harmony. It's a bit disingenuous to say that "Most people do not use this project" when everyone doing Android development indirectly uses it.
I have a lot of online Xmas shopping to do. I would normally use Amazon for a good portion of these purchases, but out of fear of having my IP captured and designated an accomplice of Anonymous, I'll do my shopping elsewhere...
I promise when and if I ever obtain wealth in the 20-30 billion dollar range, I'll give away half my fortune at some point during my lifetime (preferable just moments before I bite the big one).
Wow... I feel like Mother Theresa now, and I didn't even have to deal with a bunch of lepers!
I just wonder why they don't do more research on more primitive brains, like gnats or flies. It seems like getting a handle on that would be a giant first step to understanding our own brains.
I agree there is much to be learned there, but there have been tons of studies done on insects (I'm sure even gnats) and there's even a good deal of advancement along these lines (insect robots, swarm theory, etc), but insects do not possess a true "brain", only a nervous system which is hard-wired (through evolution) to cause it to behave a certain way. They have no capacity for memory or reasoning which are essential elements of "true" intelligence. For this, we need higher brain structures and for the purposes of trying to understand human intelligence, we need to understand the cerebral cortex. This is the part of the brain where intelligence is originated, rather than just hard-wired instinctual behavior. Low order mammals such as the mouse is (IMHO) the right place to start because it has a cerebral cortex, though it is much smaller in proportion to the rest of it's brain than higher order mammals, it is structurally similar enough that what is learned there can be applied to other, higher level species.
Sure, one could state that even a microbe has some form of intelligence (e.g. an amoeba in a pond will swim toward the more nutrient rich part of the pond), but while it's important to study and understand how it navigates through its life, it doesn't really address how cognitive function is implemented in a biological entity.
Another way to look at this is that it's the end of the cell phone era. PCs (in the form of small, handheld computers) are taking over where cell phones used to dominate (i.e. making phone calls). The term "PC" (Personal Computer) has been in use since the early 70's, but the desktop machines today are quite a different beast than those of that period. At one time, the term "PC" was used to indicate a particular architecture (based on the IBM PC vs Macintosh, Sparc, PowerPC, etc), but that really doesn't apply anymore since most machines (including the Mac) are based on this same architecture which bears very little resemblance to the original IBM PC. Additionally, the lines are very blurred between what a desktop, laptop, tablet & smartphone is. There are products that straddle the lines between each of these general categories.
Really. You mean to tell me Apple hasn't sued Google for creating an app for Andriod that looks like the app they created for iPad? Nah, I'm sure their lawyers a looking into this at this very moment.
First of all, you're correct. The pronouncement that IBM made in 2009 of having built a cat-scale brain was BS and the head of the Blue Brain (Henry Markram) project was quite upset that IBM had over-hyped the achievements and did what he could to lower expectations. I didn't realize this was the case. The link I posted was one I goggled without reading in full, having read a similar story quite a while back without the points you mention.
However, I still do not share your pessimism on the subject.
The original, over-hyped "cat-brain" announcement was from 2009, but since that time considerable progress has been made. The first of a series (Year One) of documentaries has been posted on their web site (
http://thebeautifulbrain.com/2010/02/bluebrain-film-preview/
) summarizing where they are as of April of 2010. Markram is predicting completion of a simulation on the scale of a rat brain within 2-3 years (around 12:00 into the video), moving on to a cat brain and eventually to primate and then human scale brains. To reach the human scale, he is somewhat vague on the timeframe, but 2018 is the expected completion date for the entire project. Now, just to set expectations; it may be that the end result of the project is a human brain simulation that runs hundreds, if not thousands of times slower than the human brain, but that does not invalidate it's usefulness as a tool to study and learn from. One of the biggest stumbling blocks to understanding how brains work is that it's hard to experiment on a living brain without altering it (i.e. damaging it) as well as trying to obtain results from it. This simulation will be of tremendous help in medical research as well as in cognitive science. Hardware and algorithms will improve and this gap will narrow until at some point (I have absolutely no doubt) parity with the human brain will be achieved and undoubtedly surpassed. There is just too much to be gained by doing this and as we get closer, it's importance will become more and more apparent, spurring more intense development from all the cognitive science , engineering and related disciplines. I expect this will be similar to the Human Genome project which was completed well ahead of schedule due to methods learned and advances in technologies that were not originally anticipated. Additionally, accurate simulation of a single cortical column is a huge achievement and it's taken a long time to get there, but this has now been accomplished. Because much of the brain is a mass duplication of nearly this same structure over and over again (approx. a million of them in the human brain) scaling this up will move much faster than getting the first one built.
Additionally, this is just one of many projects that are attacking the problem from many different angles. I've been following this type of research for many years and while its had it's highs and lows (rapid progress followed by seemingly no progress) and never before have we progressed so far so fast.
One more point. You're argument about analog v digital is a non-starter. We've been simulating analog systems for years using digital computers (e.g. that mp3 you're playing is digital, but sound is analog). There is no reason to think that an analog system is a requirement for generating intelligence, it's just a matter of how much digital computing power can be thrown at the problem. Memristers simply hold the promise of lowering the power requirements (both in terms "energy" required as well as "computation").
In any case, thanks for the interesting discussion.
Slashdot Mirror
The TCK is closed source.
Actually, you're partially correct. The TCK consists of three parts - the JT Harness, SigTest and the Spec Trac Tool. The JT Harness and SigTest are open source - both licensed under GPLv2.
https://jtharness.dev.java.net/ and https://sigtest.dev.java.net/
Only the Spec Trac Tool is closed source and available only to JCP members. Of course, this is sort of a mute point since all three TCK components are needed to pass the compatibility test. However, it is an important point lest one get the impression that Oracle simply wants to protect their proprietary TCK, when a good portion of it was contributed by the open source community. It is interesting however that Sun obtained the patents in question (not Oracle) and never tried to enforce them against Google, then Oracle comes along, buys Sun and immediately goes after Google. Some might think that puts Oracle in the unsavory position of being a patent troll. Oracle's current stance on dropping the field-of-use restrictions is inconsistent with their stance a couple of years ago when they supported Apache's request to Sun to have them lifted.
Also,
only available under the condition that you don't release your clean-room implementation of Java as open source
is not quite true. In fact, if you do develop a clean-room implementation (and assuming you were able to get TCK certification) you are forced to (via the terms of GPLv2) release your implementation under the GPLv2 license. This is where Harmony has a problem. Their (Apache) license is not compatible with GPLv2.
Yeah, Except why would Google want to keep Dalvik if it infringes Java patents? If you're replacing one VM with another, why not the Python VM? If they can do Python to Java Bytecodes, why not the other way round? Then people who hate Python's syntax could keep developing in the Java language with the Python VM, and you probably could also get a pretty big level of backwards compatibility.
The patents in question could just as easily apply to a Python VM. If it were that easy, Google could just rewrite the "patent offending" portions of the Dalvik VM (assuming there are any). The Dalvik VM is drastically different than a standard JVM (i.e. Dalvik is register based while JVM is stack based, Dalvik uses a drastically different executable format, very much unlike the JVM class format, etc). The problem is that the patents are broad enough that they can apply to nearly any VM.
The main point I was trying to make is that the source language is not at issue, it's the VM. Whether it's a Python or Java compiler that generates the byte-code is immaterial to the issue.
This issue (internet freedom) been festering for years and it's been eroding faster and faster along the way. We might has well rip the scab off and debate this out in the open.
A light under a basket is no light at all...
Bingo... Someone mod this up!
US Government begins shutting down any and all web sites with the term "Open" in their URL or contained within their web pages...
Unfortunately caught in the net is http://www.whitehouse.gov/open
My (feeble) understanding is that the Java license grants the right for anyone to develop their own "clean room" implementation of the JavaSE platform, but to claim it to be "Java compatible", it must pass the TCK certification. However, in order to test for compatibility against the TCK, one must license the it from Oracle. Since Oracle refuses to license the TCK, the effect is that no one can legally claim Java compatibility. It's sort of a catch-22. One of project Harmony's stated goals was to be Java compatible, but without the TCK, it's illegal for them to make that claim.
Most (if not all) of Oracle's patent infringement claims are directed to the Dalvik VM. This has nothing to do with the language used. In fact, if you like Python, you can use Jython on the JVM (and hence on the Dalvik VM) today. Same goes for Ruby (JRuby), Elang (Eljang) as well as several other languages.
Java (OpenJDK) is licensed under GPLv2. This is a fact, and most (reasonable people) would consider this open source.
http://openjdk.java.net/legal/
Sun kept the field of use restrictions in place to keep anyone (e.g. Microsoft) from forking it and fragmenting the community. Unfortunately Oracle has chosen to use this to try and strong-arm Google and get their piece of the mobile market (since JavaME was such a dismal failure). Google is no saint, it's true, but in my view they are far less "evil" than Oracle.
Pay up? For what? Java is Open-source. The Java license grants everyone the right to develop their own "clean-room" implementation of Java and it grants use of the patents involved free-of-charge.
The Oracle/Google dispute is really over two things: 1) Oracle claims Google is infringing several patents in the Delvik VM. 2) The Android platform contains copyrighted source code.
On the first point, Google disputes that the patents are valid, they don't infringe them, the patents are open-sourced, Oracle(as Sun) waited too long to go to court and Oracle is not being damaged by their use. On the second point, the supposed "copyrighted material" was part of a set of compatibility testing tools (not part of the TCK) and is not part of the standard Android SDK.
I agree that this has nothing to do with the other Apache libraries. Where I took exception with the parent was the single statement that most people do not use this project. This project (and the way Oracle dealt with it) indirectly had a great deal of bearing on Apache's decision to leave the JCP.
While resorting to name calling is the sign of a weak mind and/or weak argument, it's apparent from the rest of your post that you, my friend are the one with an intelligence deficit.
For that reason, I'll spell this out as if you were completely clueless (which nothing in your post would indicate otherwise).
You are wrong on so many levels, it's hard to know where to start, but I'll give it a shot.
First, Java was not a temporary measure for Android. Among other things, Java is a computer language. Android applications are written in the Java language. Even if Google declares Go the "blessed" language for developing on the Android, they will continue to support Java since nearly all applications up to that point will have been written in Java.
Second, Android is open-sourced (under the Apache license) and is not owned by Google. While they do have a great deal of control over it (mostly by way of their dominant influence in the project), they are part of the Open Handset Alliance which controls the project.
Third, while I will grant you, Google does not need Java (however you defined "need" here), a statement like "Google does not like Java" is a completely nonsensical statement. I don't even know what it means for a corporation to "like" something. Google adopted the Java language because it immediately gave them an immense base of software already written that could be ported to the Android platform. Google's continued development and investment into the platform (Android SDK, GWT, acquisition of Instantiations) show no sign of abating.
Fourth, Google's response (to the Northern California District Court) regarding the Oracle suit makes the following points:
The patents weren’t valid
Android didn’t infringe on the patents
The patents had been open-sourced
Oracle waited too long to bring the suit, and
Oracle has no right to sue since it’s not being damaged by Android.
What part of "The patents weren't valid" do you not understand?
Fifth, as far as their "own" language (Go), only time will tell how popular it becomes.
According to the Tiobe index ( http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html ), which tracks computer language popularity, in 2009 Go had just surpassed Pascal in popularity moving to #15, but in 2010 it has dropped to #25. Java has been #1 since the index started (in 2002) and it's rating increased again in 2010 by 0.14%. If Go is to replace Java, it' better get "go"ing.
Finally, my advice to you is to see a therapist about your obvious superiority complex.
For Java, it means what has been speculated all along has now been confirmed, that Java is NOT an open standard and is in fact controlled by one company, Oracle. This was of course, the same situation while under the control of Sun, but Sun was a bit less "evil" in that they did not enforce the restrictions. Not surprisingly, Oracle is a different beast. It's too early to tell what the long term implications will be, but a lot has to do with the outcome of the Oracle/Google case.
This of course, brings us to Android. Depending on the outcome of the Oracle/Google legal maneuvering, Android could be killed off (or retooled to remove Harmony from the equation), or Oracle's restrictions and/or patents could be vacated. Most likely the result will be something in between, where Android lives on, but is subject to the indirect control of Oracle. Of course, the IDEAL situation (the one I'm rooting for) is that Google wins. This would, in effect free Java from Oracle's greedy control and allow Android to develop into the truly remarkable platform it has the potential to become.
(Disclaimer: IANAL nor a tech analyst and I have no particular insight, other than I tend to follow this story, so my views are my own as a simple small time developer).
No, it has to do with Android of which a portion is based on Harmony. It's a bit disingenuous to say that "Most people do not use this project" when everyone doing Android development indirectly uses it.
I have a lot of online Xmas shopping to do. I would normally use Amazon for a good portion of these purchases, but out of fear of having my IP captured and designated an accomplice of Anonymous, I'll do my shopping elsewhere...
Let me ask if you think you are psychic, Mother F@#$er. My feeling is that you're a bit psycho, unlike the majority of critics here...
Mighty presumptuous my friend...
Let's see...
I promise when and if I ever obtain wealth in the 20-30 billion dollar range, I'll give away half my fortune at some point during my lifetime (preferable just moments before I bite the big one).
Wow... I feel like Mother Theresa now, and I didn't even have to deal with a bunch of lepers!
What do you think? It uses it to charge it's tiny little smart phone!
(probably a T12 Wasp http://www.planetoidandroid.com/2010/08/wasp-t12-phone-for-android/ )
Guess that would make one a "green" hornet...
Sorry, couldn't resist...
True. At least very annoying ones.
I just wonder why they don't do more research on more primitive brains, like gnats or flies. It seems like getting a handle on that would be a giant first step to understanding our own brains.
I agree there is much to be learned there, but there have been tons of studies done on insects (I'm sure even gnats) and there's even a good deal of advancement along these lines (insect robots, swarm theory, etc), but insects do not possess a true "brain", only a nervous system which is hard-wired (through evolution) to cause it to behave a certain way. They have no capacity for memory or reasoning which are essential elements of "true" intelligence. For this, we need higher brain structures and for the purposes of trying to understand human intelligence, we need to understand the cerebral cortex. This is the part of the brain where intelligence is originated, rather than just hard-wired instinctual behavior. Low order mammals such as the mouse is (IMHO) the right place to start because it has a cerebral cortex, though it is much smaller in proportion to the rest of it's brain than higher order mammals, it is structurally similar enough that what is learned there can be applied to other, higher level species.
Sure, one could state that even a microbe has some form of intelligence (e.g. an amoeba in a pond will swim toward the more nutrient rich part of the pond), but while it's important to study and understand how it navigates through its life, it doesn't really address how cognitive function is implemented in a biological entity.
Another way to look at this is that it's the end of the cell phone era. PCs (in the form of small, handheld computers) are taking over where cell phones used to dominate (i.e. making phone calls).
The term "PC" (Personal Computer) has been in use since the early 70's, but the desktop machines today are quite a different beast than those of that period. At one time, the term "PC" was used to indicate a particular architecture (based on the IBM PC vs Macintosh, Sparc, PowerPC, etc), but that really doesn't apply anymore since most machines (including the Mac) are based on this same architecture which bears very little resemblance to the original IBM PC.
Additionally, the lines are very blurred between what a desktop, laptop, tablet & smartphone is. There are products that straddle the lines between each of these general categories.
Really. You mean to tell me Apple hasn't sued Google for creating an app for Andriod that looks like the app they created for iPad?
Nah, I'm sure their lawyers a looking into this at this very moment.
First of all, you're correct. The pronouncement that IBM made in 2009 of having built a cat-scale brain was BS and the head of the Blue Brain (Henry Markram) project was quite upset that IBM had over-hyped the achievements and did what he could to lower expectations. I didn't realize this was the case. The link I posted was one I goggled without reading in full, having read a similar story quite a while back without the points you mention.
However, I still do not share your pessimism on the subject.
The original, over-hyped "cat-brain" announcement was from 2009, but since that time considerable progress has been made. The first of a series (Year One) of documentaries has been posted on their web site ( http://thebeautifulbrain.com/2010/02/bluebrain-film-preview/ ) summarizing where they are as of April of 2010. Markram is predicting completion of a simulation on the scale of a rat brain within 2-3 years (around 12:00 into the video), moving on to a cat brain and eventually to primate and then human scale brains. To reach the human scale, he is somewhat vague on the timeframe, but 2018 is the expected completion date for the entire project. Now, just to set expectations; it may be that the end result of the project is a human brain simulation that runs hundreds, if not thousands of times slower than the human brain, but that does not invalidate it's usefulness as a tool to study and learn from. One of the biggest stumbling blocks to understanding how brains work is that it's hard to experiment on a living brain without altering it (i.e. damaging it) as well as trying to obtain results from it. This simulation will be of tremendous help in medical research as well as in cognitive science. Hardware and algorithms will improve and this gap will narrow until at some point (I have absolutely no doubt) parity with the human brain will be achieved and undoubtedly surpassed. There is just too much to be gained by doing this and as we get closer, it's importance will become more and more apparent, spurring more intense development from all the cognitive science , engineering and related disciplines. I expect this will be similar to the Human Genome project which was completed well ahead of schedule due to methods learned and advances in technologies that were not originally anticipated. Additionally, accurate simulation of a single cortical column is a huge achievement and it's taken a long time to get there, but this has now been accomplished. Because much of the brain is a mass duplication of nearly this same structure over and over again (approx. a million of them in the human brain) scaling this up will move much faster than getting the first one built.
Additionally, this is just one of many projects that are attacking the problem from many different angles. I've been following this type of research for many years and while its had it's highs and lows (rapid progress followed by seemingly no progress) and never before have we progressed so far so fast.
One more point. You're argument about analog v digital is a non-starter. We've been simulating analog systems for years using digital computers (e.g. that mp3 you're playing is digital, but sound is analog). There is no reason to think that an analog system is a requirement for generating intelligence, it's just a matter of how much digital computing power can be thrown at the problem. Memristers simply hold the promise of lowering the power requirements (both in terms "energy" required as well as "computation").
In any case, thanks for the interesting discussion.
Nothing new here. I remember way back (late 70's) when when we had the old IBM 1403 printer playing tunes.
http://beemp3.com/download.php?file=8038028&song=1403+First+Noel
I installed Ubuntu and OS/X on my existing Windows7 PC without any troubles whatsoever, and saved myself about $1,500.00 in the process :)
Haha - I like that.
.Net
Reminds me of a video I saw a while back on Java vs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gM2P8wcBPWc