Indeed. It's a ludicrous headline, typical for the kind of hyperbole of science journalism.
Humans originate from Africa. Where very ancient primates originate from is another question, and isn't all that relevant to the particular issue of human origins. This moronic story has a headline that sounds like somebody is trying to reinvoke the multi-regional hypothesis.
Shame on Slashdot. Shame on the fucking retard who wrote the article.
Same here. Pretty bizarre stuff. I also remember the first time I read Something Wicked This Way Comes. Scared the shit out of me. We've lost one of the great ones.
I can't see the point at all. It's like everyone competing over a worthless chunk of land. Search engines have made domain names nearly worthless. Who the fuck cares what the domain name is?
Oh, and I could also mention Fred Hoyle, whose rejection of Big Bang cosmology pretty much isolated him from his peers, and by the time of his death, Big Bang cosmology had been generally been accepted for thirty years.
I don't buy it. Give me an example, because the one's provided so far; Einstein's objections to QM and Victorian naturalists objections to Natural Selection, don't prove your point at all, quite the opposite, they indicate that scientists, when presented with a good theory, will give it due consideration. Einstein may have had his objections to QM, but even his own peers were giving away to it, because it explained observations very well.
If what you said was true, theories would come in fits, only when the old guys kicked it, but looking at the history of science, particularly over the last two centuries, that's not how it happens at all. The old guys, if they insist upon the old view, get sidelined long before they become worm food.
In the case of continental drift, the issue was that the theory had some serious issues at that point and thus those who objected to it did not object to it out of dogmatism, but rather because it was still a very shaky hypothesis. The same thing applies to string theory. It isn't dogmatism that leads the majority of the physics community to push it to the side and to seek for other potential theories of quantum gravity, but rather the fact that it is as of yet untestable, and therefore, no matter how well it might explain certain features of the Universe, remains essentially stunted by the inability as of yet to differentiate its predictions from a number of other theories (and, to be fair, none of the other theories, like loop quantum gravity or causal dynamical triangulation, are as of yet testable either).
This "old guard" argument is absolute nonsense. It's not as if the late Victorian and early 20th century biologists and naturalists had to all die off before the Modern Synthesis was seen as the grand unifying theory of evolutionary biology. It's utility was accepted very quickly, and didn't have to wait for the "old men" to die off.
Carl Sagan said it best: "They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
A theory has to have more substance than "somewhere somehow something is wrong with evolution." The only positive claim (if you can call it that) to come out of ID was Dembski's information filter, which was demonstrated to be mathematical fluff years ago.
Let's not forget that Einstein's work didn't come out of thin air, but was based on previous work like Lorentz and Maxwell. We have mythologized Einstein to some extent, just as we did with Newton and Galileo, tending to forget that these men, while instrumental in scientific advancement, built upon previous work.
Really? Where? Even string theorists will admit, when pushed to do so, that they do not yet possess a testable theory, and the wider physics community has never particularly embraced it, considering it an interesting hypothesis that may not have a damned thing to do with reality.
I don't think that's all that correct either. Plenty of naturalists that objected initially to Darwin were won over in his own lifetime, and most certainly while Einstein objected to QM, some of his own peers accepted it in due course. The "old guard" is not some homogeneous band of group thinkers, but is as diverse in view as the new guard is. Even Einstein himself modified some of his views, calling the cosmological constant that he had inserted into GR "the biggest mistake" of his career (of course, the irony being that the inflationary model went and re-inserted it).
Thank you. This idea that we have to have a complete explanation before a theory has explanatory power is total bunk, more the mad imaginings of Creationists or the silly claims of people who have based their understanding of science solely on Kuhn (and taking his position to such extremes that even Kuhn later regretted some of what he wrote).
Science simply does not work like some people believe it does. If you have a body on the floor and a bullet hole through the head, you can make a preliminary hypothesis that the person was shot, even without the bullet or gun that fired it in hand. Even that incomplete a theory has explanatory power.
There is no ID model. You're just dressing up catastrophism in fancy new clothes, making odd claims about C14 (which is absolutely no use in questions around tectonic plates and continent drift).
Where do people like you come from. I mean, what you've written above is so absurd, it's not even wrong.
Since this has been a total victory for Google, they will likely get a fair amount of legal fees back. So the real point is that Oracle should have played ball with Google. They're greed cost them not only the case but also the presence of Java on the Android ecosystem.
As to whether Dalvim damages Java, I could care less. Let the two forks compete and may the best one win.
I've actually had fairly good success with PG and eBooks. They are just as good, if not better in some cases, than the eBooks I've purchased so far as quality control goes.
It would have been bad, but not the end of the world as people keep believing. Calling APIs would have almost certainly been a fair use exemption and pretty much no vendor is likely actually sue over it even if it wasn't. You might have had some issues calling undocumented APIs, and stuff like WINE and SAMBA could have had issues if Microsoft had felt particularly inclined to do so.
Bullshit. If copyright could be extended to APIs, it means whoever developed those APIs automatically can dictate how and by who they are accessed. I love the comment "WINE and Samba could have had issues". Even in your own "this ain't a big deal" post you admit, in a minimalistic sort of way, that Microsoft could potentially have had the power to invoke copyright over the work-alike APIs. For "problem" read "shut down".
The biggest problem with this case is that both sides need to lose. Dalvik needs to be stopped, and copyrighting APIs needs to be stopped, more importantly someone needs to take the execs at Google into the alley out the back and beat them until they promise to stop doing this kind of shit. They knew damned well what they were doing and they've rolled the dice at terrible risk to everyone and spent millions of dollars getting into a pissing match they never should have started. If they'd just licensed Java in the first place none of this would have been necessary.
1. They don't need to license Java. It's a programming language, and cannot be copyrighted (this is long standing in US and international IP law). And, as we see, they don't need to licence the JVM if they go out and build their own virtual machine. 2. How is what Google did with Dalvik one bit different than what the GCJ team did allowing Java source to be compiled to native machine code? If Google is so evil for daring to develop it's own virtual machine, then the Gnu folks must be even worse for allowing a Java developer to bypass the JVM entirely. 3. It's a free country. Don't use Dalvik if you don't want to. Maybe somebody needs to take you into the alley and beat a little respect for free enterprise into you.
You must have spitting fire when GCJ created the ability to compile Java to native machine code.
Java is a language, just like C, C#, PHP, Cobol, and all the rest. If someone wants to write something that compiles to native machine code, to some other language or to some other VM, then so what? This all happened because Sun, and later Oracle, thought they had a level of control it now is shown they do not. This whole "purity of Java" line is bunk. It's like saying "the only true C is C compiled to a PDP-7".
Besides, your Java code is, for the most part, just a cross-compile away from Dalvik. The situation is hardly that dire.
Or, to put it simply, the parent is committing the etymological fallacy. The meaning of the word has changed, as happens on occasion, language and usage not being fixed forever.
Slashdot Mirror
In other words "We have a new distro, how can we get some free advertising..."
Indeed. It's a ludicrous headline, typical for the kind of hyperbole of science journalism.
Humans originate from Africa. Where very ancient primates originate from is another question, and isn't all that relevant to the particular issue of human origins. This moronic story has a headline that sounds like somebody is trying to reinvoke the multi-regional hypothesis.
Shame on Slashdot. Shame on the fucking retard who wrote the article.
Same here. Pretty bizarre stuff. I also remember the first time I read Something Wicked This Way Comes. Scared the shit out of me. We've lost one of the great ones.
I can't see the point at all. It's like everyone competing over a worthless chunk of land. Search engines have made domain names nearly worthless. Who the fuck cares what the domain name is?
You mean we get to return to bang paths! Awesome.
Oh, and I could also mention Fred Hoyle, whose rejection of Big Bang cosmology pretty much isolated him from his peers, and by the time of his death, Big Bang cosmology had been generally been accepted for thirty years.
I don't buy it. Give me an example, because the one's provided so far; Einstein's objections to QM and Victorian naturalists objections to Natural Selection, don't prove your point at all, quite the opposite, they indicate that scientists, when presented with a good theory, will give it due consideration. Einstein may have had his objections to QM, but even his own peers were giving away to it, because it explained observations very well.
If what you said was true, theories would come in fits, only when the old guys kicked it, but looking at the history of science, particularly over the last two centuries, that's not how it happens at all. The old guys, if they insist upon the old view, get sidelined long before they become worm food.
In the case of continental drift, the issue was that the theory had some serious issues at that point and thus those who objected to it did not object to it out of dogmatism, but rather because it was still a very shaky hypothesis. The same thing applies to string theory. It isn't dogmatism that leads the majority of the physics community to push it to the side and to seek for other potential theories of quantum gravity, but rather the fact that it is as of yet untestable, and therefore, no matter how well it might explain certain features of the Universe, remains essentially stunted by the inability as of yet to differentiate its predictions from a number of other theories (and, to be fair, none of the other theories, like loop quantum gravity or causal dynamical triangulation, are as of yet testable either).
This "old guard" argument is absolute nonsense. It's not as if the late Victorian and early 20th century biologists and naturalists had to all die off before the Modern Synthesis was seen as the grand unifying theory of evolutionary biology. It's utility was accepted very quickly, and didn't have to wait for the "old men" to die off.
Carl Sagan said it best: "They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
A theory has to have more substance than "somewhere somehow something is wrong with evolution." The only positive claim (if you can call it that) to come out of ID was Dembski's information filter, which was demonstrated to be mathematical fluff years ago.
Let's not forget that Einstein's work didn't come out of thin air, but was based on previous work like Lorentz and Maxwell. We have mythologized Einstein to some extent, just as we did with Newton and Galileo, tending to forget that these men, while instrumental in scientific advancement, built upon previous work.
Really? Where? Even string theorists will admit, when pushed to do so, that they do not yet possess a testable theory, and the wider physics community has never particularly embraced it, considering it an interesting hypothesis that may not have a damned thing to do with reality.
All three of them...
I don't think that's all that correct either. Plenty of naturalists that objected initially to Darwin were won over in his own lifetime, and most certainly while Einstein objected to QM, some of his own peers accepted it in due course. The "old guard" is not some homogeneous band of group thinkers, but is as diverse in view as the new guard is. Even Einstein himself modified some of his views, calling the cosmological constant that he had inserted into GR "the biggest mistake" of his career (of course, the irony being that the inflationary model went and re-inserted it).
Thank you. This idea that we have to have a complete explanation before a theory has explanatory power is total bunk, more the mad imaginings of Creationists or the silly claims of people who have based their understanding of science solely on Kuhn (and taking his position to such extremes that even Kuhn later regretted some of what he wrote).
Science simply does not work like some people believe it does. If you have a body on the floor and a bullet hole through the head, you can make a preliminary hypothesis that the person was shot, even without the bullet or gun that fired it in hand. Even that incomplete a theory has explanatory power.
There is no ID model. You're just dressing up catastrophism in fancy new clothes, making odd claims about C14 (which is absolutely no use in questions around tectonic plates and continent drift).
Where do people like you come from. I mean, what you've written above is so absurd, it's not even wrong.
Oracle will be throwing good money after bad if it appeals. Oh, an I have not heard that C# and C++ damaged C. You're just being hysterical.
You can do that with any language that writes to standard output. Jeezus, I've never heard anyone try to describe PHP as unique.
I'm sorry. First you have to provide evidence for dualism before you can make further claims about it.
Since this has been a total victory for Google, they will likely get a fair amount of legal fees back. So the real point is that Oracle should have played ball with Google. They're greed cost them not only the case but also the presence of Java on the Android ecosystem.
As to whether Dalvim damages Java, I could care less. Let the two forks compete and may the best one win.
Oh and you're a fucking idiot.
I've actually had fairly good success with PG and eBooks. They are just as good, if not better in some cases, than the eBooks I've purchased so far as quality control goes.
Bullshit. If copyright could be extended to APIs, it means whoever developed those APIs automatically can dictate how and by who they are accessed. I love the comment "WINE and Samba could have had issues". Even in your own "this ain't a big deal" post you admit, in a minimalistic sort of way, that Microsoft could potentially have had the power to invoke copyright over the work-alike APIs. For "problem" read "shut down".
1. They don't need to license Java. It's a programming language, and cannot be copyrighted (this is long standing in US and international IP law). And, as we see, they don't need to licence the JVM if they go out and build their own virtual machine.
2. How is what Google did with Dalvik one bit different than what the GCJ team did allowing Java source to be compiled to native machine code? If Google is so evil for daring to develop it's own virtual machine, then the Gnu folks must be even worse for allowing a Java developer to bypass the JVM entirely.
3. It's a free country. Don't use Dalvik if you don't want to. Maybe somebody needs to take you into the alley and beat a little respect for free enterprise into you.
I haven't been this thrilled with a judge since the Dover Decision squashed the Intelligent Design scam.
You must have spitting fire when GCJ created the ability to compile Java to native machine code.
Java is a language, just like C, C#, PHP, Cobol, and all the rest. If someone wants to write something that compiles to native machine code, to some other language or to some other VM, then so what? This all happened because Sun, and later Oracle, thought they had a level of control it now is shown they do not. This whole "purity of Java" line is bunk. It's like saying "the only true C is C compiled to a PDP-7".
Besides, your Java code is, for the most part, just a cross-compile away from Dalvik. The situation is hardly that dire.
Or, to put it simply, the parent is committing the etymological fallacy. The meaning of the word has changed, as happens on occasion, language and usage not being fixed forever.
In Soviet Russia Googles You!