Actually Google was just bastardizing Java as much as Microsoft did with J++. Oracle has every right to sue Google and Google isn't as innocent as you seem to believe.
Sun made a promise to keep Java standardized as much as possible. Oracle stepped up to the plate and continue to defend Java.
Range and ultimate power requirements are a function of the frequency not necessarily the protocol being used.
CDMA is spread spectrum which makes it more resistant to interference than GSM. However due to the signal-to-noise ratio being influenced by the number of people using the band, CDMA does require more power to operate during peak usage times. On the other hand, GSM uses time division for multiple users on the same frequency and frequency division to spread the load which allows it to use less power compared to CDMA when operating on similar bands.
I think it may be a little unfair to use anecdotal evidence against GSM since CDMA networks tend to be on the 800MHz band and GSM tend to be in the 1700-1900 MHz band which means CDMA usually penetrates buildings better and have higher range per watt transmitted. When I am in a sparsely populated state like New Mexico, my quad-band phone uses the 800 MHz band for GSM and I don't detect much difference between my T-Mobile phone using Prairie Wireless Towers and my co-workers Verizon phone using CDMA.
As for your other points, I like to see some references.
There were 3 call centers located near my home that did nothing but make calls on behalf of collection agencies. I had a chance to talk to a manager of one and he told me that they only call out of state numbers. By calling only out of state numbers they only have to abide by federal regulations and not any state laws.
Pretty much everything you stated is in that document except that no restrictions on the number of calls that can be made per day except that they can't "Causing a telephone to ring or engaging any person in telephone conversation repeatedly or continuously
with intent to annoy, abuse, or harass any person at the
called number."
I can't help but notice that Samsung is a partner. Could this be the OS we kept hearing rumors about? You know the one where Samsung is nervous about Google's purchase of Motorola and needs to hedge its bets by having their own OS.
I would love to see Meego/Tizen continue to exist. I'm glad Samsung is stepping up to replace Nokia that went to Microsoft.
There is no proof and neither James Gosling nor Jonathan Schwartz have said that the sole reason Oracle purchased Sun was to sue Google. Nowhere did I see the ability to sue Google being a requirement for the sale. I can see this legal issue being a sticking point because of the possible liability not that it was an asset.
Oracle does want to monetize Java (just like most open source providers of software) and one way is to protect their investment through patent enforcement. The topic of Google's possible infringement of these patents were brought up at the integration meetings as reported by Gosling. I put this in the "no shit sherlock" category of information. Only a total moron would not bring this subject up at the meetings. Did Sun provide a license to Google? No. Was Sun interested in providing a license to Google prior to the possible merger? No. Now that Oracle was purchasing Sun would they finally decide what to do about this infringement? Yes.
Oracle was inheriting some IP conflicts with the purchase of Sun. This is not uncommon when any large corporation purchase another large corporation.
So how do you spin this information? Evidently you can take the tabloid approach that uses some fact out of context to justify a hypothesis that was pulled out of his ass.
Hypothesis: The reason Oracle purchase Sun was to sue Google.
Evidence Provided: At an integration meeting the subject of Google's use of Sun's patents was brought up.
Miguel: The evidence is proof that Oracle purchased Sun to sue Google.
A more reasonable explanation: Oracle purchased Sun for the hardware and software portfolio that would shore up it's position in enterprise computing. During the merger process the subject of Google's use of Sun's IP was discussed. It was probably decided that this loose end needed to be tied up for accounting reasons. Either sell a license to use these patents to Google and record it as an asset (accounts receivable at the time of the merger) or failing that sue Google for the patent infringement and record it as a liability (accounts payable at the time of the merger).
But back to your question:
And this has no merit ?
Maybe not as much as you had hoped.
Motive?
To score points for Miguel's favorite platform: Mono.
Proof?
(From Miguel's blog)Too many engineering resources are devoted to Android at Google and at their partner companies, but I can not help to think that Google could migrate Android from Java to the ECMA/ISO CIL and C#.
Unlike the Java patent grant, the Microsoft Community Promise for both C#, the core class libraries and the VM only require that you have a full implementation. Supersetting is allowed.
You may have to take into account that some if not most of European countries where cannabis is prohibited have a very low enforcement of these laws if at all, at least as far as consumption is concerned.
Possible but I haven't found credible statistics concerning law enforcement to add to the conversation.
This assumes that drugs are bad, which is not at all obvious from my perspective.
The health effects of drugs is not part of the discussion. The topic is the sale of drugs to support the activities of a cartel in Mexico.
Right, how many massacres have you seen in the last 50 years from warring alcohol runners?
Easy! Exactly the same as during prohibition which is NONE. The St. Valentines Massacre in Illinois only resulted in 7 deaths and was technically between two crime families not alcohol runners.
Well not so easy... Since you said alcohol runners, how about an illegal casino that served alcohol? The Wah Mee massacre happened on Feb 18, 1983 in Seattle, Washington and 13 people were killed and 1 person was injured.
Prohibition ended on Dec 5, 1933 so how many "massacres" happened since? The answer will surprise you... Twenty-Nine (29)! There were twenty-nine massacres within the US after the repeal of prohibition.
A sensationalist answer for a sensationalist question.:P.
Power and money aren't mutually exclusive. As long as the drug cartels have influence in local politics the more free reign they have and the more money they can acquire.
(Ok I looked at Wikipedia, Google, and the agencies cited by wikipedia. Wikipedia did a fair job summarizing the data so I looked at its pages and summarized it below)
Ok. Let's look at the legal status of Cannabis for each country in the European Union (obviously not necessarily within geographical Europe).
The countries that make it illegal to possess cannabis are: Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Sweden, and United Kingdom.
The countries that decriminalized the possession of cannabis are: Belgium (illegal/Decriminalized Adults possessing 3g or less in own home tolerated), Estonia (illegal/Decriminalized 10g for personal use punishable by fine), Finland (illegal/Decriminalized for medical use), Netherlands (Decriminalized), Portugal (illegal/Decriminalized its an administrative offense), and Spain (illegal/Decriminalized growing the plant on private property for personal use).
The country within the european union that decriminalized the sale of cannabis: Netherlands is sold in "coffee shops"
So the "liberal" european lifestyle consists of 19 countries that completely outlaw the sale and possession of cannabis, 6 countries that make it illegal to sale cannabis but possession is decriminalized with exceptions, and only 1 country that decriminalized the sale and possession of cannabis. BTW Europe is much bigger than the Netherlands.:P
So how does the Netherlands' drug use compare with other countries within the European Union?
(From wikipedia)
"In the Netherlands 9.5% of young adults (aged 15–34) consume soft drugs once a month, comparable to the level of Finland (8%), Latvia (9,7%) and Norway (9.6%) and less than in the UK (13.8%), Germany (11,9%), Czech Republic (19,3%), Denmark (13,3%), Spain (18.8%), France (16,7%), Slovakia (14,7%) and Italy (20,9%) but higher than in Bulgaria (4,4%), Sweden (4,8%), Poland (5,3%) or Greece (3,2%).[24][25] The monthly prevalence of drugs other than cannabis among young people (15-24) was 4% in 2004, that was above the average (3%) of 15 compared countries in EU. However, seemingly few transcend to becoming problem drug users (0.30%), well below the average (0.52%) of the same compared countries.[25]
The reported number of deaths linked to the use of drugs in the Netherlands, as a proportion of the entire population, is together with Poland, France, Slovakia, Hungary and the Czech Republic the lowest of the EU.[26] The Dutch government is able to support approximately 90% of help-seeking addicts with detoxification programs. Treatment demand is rising.[27]
Criminal investigations into more serious forms of organized crime mainly involve drugs (72%). Most of these are investigations of hard drug crime (specifically cocaine and synthetic drugs) although the number of soft drug cases is rising and currently accounts for 69% of criminal investigations.[27]"
It appears that Netherlands' drug use in young adults is comparable to other european countries. While lower than UK and Germany the cases of drug use is on the rise with more adults seeking out-patient treatment. The Netherlands currently spend around EU$130 million annually on treatment which is roughly 0.02% of their GDP.
Interestingly Sweden has a zero-tolerance policy on drugs and have a very low drug use in young adults (5% lower than Netherlands). This is despite Sweden being ranked #2 in amount of disposable income. If Netherlands' is an example of why we should legalize drugs, then Sweden should also be an example of why we should keep drugs illegal and look at the methods used for enforcement.
The situation isn't very complicated really. Drug prohibition prevents no one to access the substances but makes it extremely profitable for dealers to trade them. Now remove the profitable aspect of the equation and try to imagine what might ensue.
Did you not fully comprehend my comment? Their objective is power and use money to finance it. Power gives them economic and political incentive within their region. Just look at the example of organized crime continuing to exist after prohibition within the US.
You assume traditional market forces will cause profitability to go down? How? If anything you just increased their market size which would mean that despite lowering their profit margin on each item sold, they would still enjoy increased profits overall.
If drugs were legalized, the drug cartels would still exist and the US would have a bigger problem with substance abuse. Now what problem are you trying to solve?
What proof do you have that legalizing drugs won't cause more problems than it supposedly solves? I'm skeptical that legalizing drugs would solve anything and so far haven't seen any proof.
Just because you repeatedly post that solution on the internet does not necessarily make it true.
You know the drug cartels could easily be war lords that uses violence to exert their power over the populace and use drugs to finance their operations. Legalizing drugs would simply make them look elsewhere for financing or worse legitimize their financing operations. Sure you'd be able to get your weed cheaper but you still haven't solved the violence that you supposedly care about.
Just look at the prohibition era of the 1920's that people always use as an example. Did it really solve anything? Not really. Sure a ridiculous prohibition on alcohol was repealed but the mafia and bootleggers still found other sources of income. The US government still spends a shit load of money and time trying to prosecute these people and while the alcohol protests subsided the underlying violence did not.
So do I. A certain political party preaches pulling one's self up by the boot strap. This would imply that they are encouraging people to assume risk for a potential payoff. It seems illogical that they would encourage people to be entrepreneurs or investors while removing these social safety nets. It's as if they are just catering to the ones who already took the risk and succeeded or are descendants of robber-barons at the expense of future new wealth.
Nothing that a fan blowing across the motherboards can't fix. When you have multiple motherboards in a single enclosure you will need active cooling anyway.
I wouldn't recommend the stack motherboard method anyway. You can make beige box 2U rack mount PCs with two 6 core Xenons and 24GB of memory for around $3000 US and this includes 4TB of SATA drive storage in a hot swappable chassis. (Check out new egg). If you need more power then just build another chassis and at it to the rack. The trick is to start modest and build up. Not every research project needs a big cluster.
Bad things can happen to anyone. The probability of a bad thing happening is proportional to the risky behavior exhibited by the subject. For example there have been cases of people being struck by lightning 10 miles away from a thunderstorm in this case the victim perceived that there was clear sky above. However the probability of that happening is significantly lower than the probability of a groin injury happening to a person who likes to skateboard on hand rails.
Well unless UNTHA is giving these units away, GE is paying for them. GE sponsors the use of these machines at the recycling machine and therefore announces their use.
The cancellation of the Constellation program forced a retooling of the Orion MPCV. I believe the final decision is for water landings. Here is a link to a water landing certification test performed last July.
NASA tried the landing on the water thing and I believe that their new capsules are designed to land on land because having to have boats near the landing site turned out to be extremely expensive and complex.
Six of one is a half dozen of another. The water thing went quite well for NASA except maybe one incident (Liberty Bell 7). The nice thing about water landings is that the human population density of the oceans is practically zero therefore it has a larger safety margin for ground population.
BTW NASA's Orion MPCV capsules are designed for water landing.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually Google was just bastardizing Java as much as Microsoft did with J++. Oracle has every right to sue Google and Google isn't as innocent as you seem to believe.
Sun made a promise to keep Java standardized as much as possible. Oracle stepped up to the plate and continue to defend Java.
Range and ultimate power requirements are a function of the frequency not necessarily the protocol being used.
CDMA is spread spectrum which makes it more resistant to interference than GSM. However due to the signal-to-noise ratio being influenced by the number of people using the band, CDMA does require more power to operate during peak usage times. On the other hand, GSM uses time division for multiple users on the same frequency and frequency division to spread the load which allows it to use less power compared to CDMA when operating on similar bands.
I think it may be a little unfair to use anecdotal evidence against GSM since CDMA networks tend to be on the 800MHz band and GSM tend to be in the 1700-1900 MHz band which means CDMA usually penetrates buildings better and have higher range per watt transmitted. When I am in a sparsely populated state like New Mexico, my quad-band phone uses the 800 MHz band for GSM and I don't detect much difference between my T-Mobile phone using Prairie Wireless Towers and my co-workers Verizon phone using CDMA.
As for your other points, I like to see some references.
To be fair this may be more like CBS' "Person of Interest" than "Minority Report".
On Windows, Firefox 7 beats Chrome 14 by a negligible margin. Opera takes 3rd place, IE 9 takes 4th, and Safari comes last.
On OS X Lion, Safari is still king. And that is pretty much all the author states.
There were 3 call centers located near my home that did nothing but make calls on behalf of collection agencies. I had a chance to talk to a manager of one and he told me that they only call out of state numbers. By calling only out of state numbers they only have to abide by federal regulations and not any state laws.
Here are the federal trade commission's regulation concerning debt collection practices.
Pretty much everything you stated is in that document except that no restrictions on the number of calls that can be made per day except that they can't "Causing a telephone to ring or engaging any person in telephone conversation repeatedly or continuously with intent to annoy, abuse, or harass any person at the called number."
I can't help but notice that Samsung is a partner. Could this be the OS we kept hearing rumors about? You know the one where Samsung is nervous about Google's purchase of Motorola and needs to hedge its bets by having their own OS.
I would love to see Meego/Tizen continue to exist. I'm glad Samsung is stepping up to replace Nokia that went to Microsoft.
The difference being that DoD technology tends to stay secret while NASA technology tends to stay open.
Merit v. Motive.
There is no proof and neither James Gosling nor Jonathan Schwartz have said that the sole reason Oracle purchased Sun was to sue Google. Nowhere did I see the ability to sue Google being a requirement for the sale. I can see this legal issue being a sticking point because of the possible liability not that it was an asset.
Oracle does want to monetize Java (just like most open source providers of software) and one way is to protect their investment through patent enforcement. The topic of Google's possible infringement of these patents were brought up at the integration meetings as reported by Gosling. I put this in the "no shit sherlock" category of information. Only a total moron would not bring this subject up at the meetings. Did Sun provide a license to Google? No. Was Sun interested in providing a license to Google prior to the possible merger? No. Now that Oracle was purchasing Sun would they finally decide what to do about this infringement? Yes.
Oracle was inheriting some IP conflicts with the purchase of Sun. This is not uncommon when any large corporation purchase another large corporation.
So how do you spin this information? Evidently you can take the tabloid approach that uses some fact out of context to justify a hypothesis that was pulled out of his ass.
Hypothesis: The reason Oracle purchase Sun was to sue Google.
Evidence Provided: At an integration meeting the subject of Google's use of Sun's patents was brought up.
Miguel: The evidence is proof that Oracle purchased Sun to sue Google.
A more reasonable explanation: Oracle purchased Sun for the hardware and software portfolio that would shore up it's position in enterprise computing. During the merger process the subject of Google's use of Sun's IP was discussed. It was probably decided that this loose end needed to be tied up for accounting reasons. Either sell a license to use these patents to Google and record it as an asset (accounts receivable at the time of the merger) or failing that sue Google for the patent infringement and record it as a liability (accounts payable at the time of the merger).
But back to your question:
Maybe not as much as you had hoped.
Motive?
To score points for Miguel's favorite platform: Mono.
Proof?
(From Miguel's blog)Too many engineering resources are devoted to Android at Google and at their partner companies, but I can not help to think that Google could migrate Android from Java to the ECMA/ISO CIL and C#.
Unlike the Java patent grant, the Microsoft Community Promise for both C#, the core class libraries and the VM only require that you have a full implementation. Supersetting is allowed.
A proponent of Mono/C# has damning insight on Java... Color me shocked.
I'm sorry are you being sarcastic?
NASA Open Source Licensing
Possible but I haven't found credible statistics concerning law enforcement to add to the conversation.
The health effects of drugs is not part of the discussion. The topic is the sale of drugs to support the activities of a cartel in Mexico.
Easy! Exactly the same as during prohibition which is NONE. The St. Valentines Massacre in Illinois only resulted in 7 deaths and was technically between two crime families not alcohol runners.
Well not so easy... Since you said alcohol runners, how about an illegal casino that served alcohol? The Wah Mee massacre happened on Feb 18, 1983 in Seattle, Washington and 13 people were killed and 1 person was injured.
Prohibition ended on Dec 5, 1933 so how many "massacres" happened since? The answer will surprise you... Twenty-Nine (29)! There were twenty-nine massacres within the US after the repeal of prohibition.
A sensationalist answer for a sensationalist question. :P.
From stories like El Chapo, Mexico Drug Lord, Gains Power As Cartels Fall.
Power and money aren't mutually exclusive. As long as the drug cartels have influence in local politics the more free reign they have and the more money they can acquire.
(Ok I looked at Wikipedia, Google, and the agencies cited by wikipedia. Wikipedia did a fair job summarizing the data so I looked at its pages and summarized it below)
Ok. Let's look at the legal status of Cannabis for each country in the European Union (obviously not necessarily within geographical Europe).
The countries that make it illegal to possess cannabis are: Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Sweden, and United Kingdom.
The countries that decriminalized the possession of cannabis are: Belgium (illegal/Decriminalized Adults possessing 3g or less in own home tolerated), Estonia (illegal/Decriminalized 10g for personal use punishable by fine), Finland (illegal/Decriminalized for medical use), Netherlands (Decriminalized), Portugal (illegal/Decriminalized its an administrative offense), and Spain (illegal/Decriminalized growing the plant on private property for personal use).
The country within the european union that decriminalized the sale of cannabis: Netherlands is sold in "coffee shops"
So the "liberal" european lifestyle consists of 19 countries that completely outlaw the sale and possession of cannabis, 6 countries that make it illegal to sale cannabis but possession is decriminalized with exceptions, and only 1 country that decriminalized the sale and possession of cannabis. BTW Europe is much bigger than the Netherlands. :P
So how does the Netherlands' drug use compare with other countries within the European Union?
(From wikipedia)
"In the Netherlands 9.5% of young adults (aged 15–34) consume soft drugs once a month, comparable to the level of Finland (8%), Latvia (9,7%) and Norway (9.6%) and less than in the UK (13.8%), Germany (11,9%), Czech Republic (19,3%), Denmark (13,3%), Spain (18.8%), France (16,7%), Slovakia (14,7%) and Italy (20,9%) but higher than in Bulgaria (4,4%), Sweden (4,8%), Poland (5,3%) or Greece (3,2%).[24][25] The monthly prevalence of drugs other than cannabis among young people (15-24) was 4% in 2004, that was above the average (3%) of 15 compared countries in EU. However, seemingly few transcend to becoming problem drug users (0.30%), well below the average (0.52%) of the same compared countries.[25]
The reported number of deaths linked to the use of drugs in the Netherlands, as a proportion of the entire population, is together with Poland, France, Slovakia, Hungary and the Czech Republic the lowest of the EU.[26] The Dutch government is able to support approximately 90% of help-seeking addicts with detoxification programs. Treatment demand is rising.[27]
Criminal investigations into more serious forms of organized crime mainly involve drugs (72%). Most of these are investigations of hard drug crime (specifically cocaine and synthetic drugs) although the number of soft drug cases is rising and currently accounts for 69% of criminal investigations.[27]"
It appears that Netherlands' drug use in young adults is comparable to other european countries. While lower than UK and Germany the cases of drug use is on the rise with more adults seeking out-patient treatment. The Netherlands currently spend around EU$130 million annually on treatment which is roughly 0.02% of their GDP.
Interestingly Sweden has a zero-tolerance policy on drugs and have a very low drug use in young adults (5% lower than Netherlands). This is despite Sweden being ranked #2 in amount of disposable income. If Netherlands' is an example of why we should legalize drugs, then Sweden should also be an example of why we should keep drugs illegal and look at the methods used for enforcement.
Sure if you look at the the whole embedded system and not just at the speed rating of the CPU.
Did you not fully comprehend my comment? Their objective is power and use money to finance it. Power gives them economic and political incentive within their region. Just look at the example of organized crime continuing to exist after prohibition within the US.
You assume traditional market forces will cause profitability to go down? How? If anything you just increased their market size which would mean that despite lowering their profit margin on each item sold, they would still enjoy increased profits overall.
If drugs were legalized, the drug cartels would still exist and the US would have a bigger problem with substance abuse. Now what problem are you trying to solve?
What proof do you have that legalizing drugs won't cause more problems than it supposedly solves? I'm skeptical that legalizing drugs would solve anything and so far haven't seen any proof.
Just because you repeatedly post that solution on the internet does not necessarily make it true.
You know the drug cartels could easily be war lords that uses violence to exert their power over the populace and use drugs to finance their operations. Legalizing drugs would simply make them look elsewhere for financing or worse legitimize their financing operations. Sure you'd be able to get your weed cheaper but you still haven't solved the violence that you supposedly care about.
Just look at the prohibition era of the 1920's that people always use as an example. Did it really solve anything? Not really. Sure a ridiculous prohibition on alcohol was repealed but the mafia and bootleggers still found other sources of income. The US government still spends a shit load of money and time trying to prosecute these people and while the alcohol protests subsided the underlying violence did not.
So do I. A certain political party preaches pulling one's self up by the boot strap. This would imply that they are encouraging people to assume risk for a potential payoff. It seems illogical that they would encourage people to be entrepreneurs or investors while removing these social safety nets. It's as if they are just catering to the ones who already took the risk and succeeded or are descendants of robber-barons at the expense of future new wealth.
Okay. I was agreeing with you both. I was just clarifying your point. Sometimes intent is hard to express using forums.
Nothing that a fan blowing across the motherboards can't fix. When you have multiple motherboards in a single enclosure you will need active cooling anyway.
I wouldn't recommend the stack motherboard method anyway. You can make beige box 2U rack mount PCs with two 6 core Xenons and 24GB of memory for around $3000 US and this includes 4TB of SATA drive storage in a hot swappable chassis. (Check out new egg). If you need more power then just build another chassis and at it to the rack. The trick is to start modest and build up. Not every research project needs a big cluster.
It would be more accurate to say:
Bad things can happen to anyone. The probability of a bad thing happening is proportional to the risky behavior exhibited by the subject. For example there have been cases of people being struck by lightning 10 miles away from a thunderstorm in this case the victim perceived that there was clear sky above. However the probability of that happening is significantly lower than the probability of a groin injury happening to a person who likes to skateboard on hand rails.
So you are both right.
Well unless UNTHA is giving these units away, GE is paying for them. GE sponsors the use of these machines at the recycling machine and therefore announces their use.
What's not to get?
The cancellation of the Constellation program forced a retooling of the Orion MPCV. I believe the final decision is for water landings. Here is a link to a water landing certification test performed last July.
Six of one is a half dozen of another. The water thing went quite well for NASA except maybe one incident (Liberty Bell 7). The nice thing about water landings is that the human population density of the oceans is practically zero therefore it has a larger safety margin for ground population.
BTW NASA's Orion MPCV capsules are designed for water landing.