Arguments for slow Java are so 1990's. Every Java application, desktop or otherwise, I have written has been very snappy, very responsive. Swing has always had places where you can get caught making your own application slow to load or slow to respond. I believe that the community and Sun have really ushered in conventions to mitigate that. SwingWorker (part of core Java Swing), Timing Framework [java.net], JPA (especially our friends at Eclipse), and other community frameworks have really changed the way coders write Java desktop applications in ways that avoid a lot of the pitfalls that came with the 1.1, 1.2 and so on versions of Java.
I think this is the reason why Oracle really needs to embrace the community. It has been because of them that Java has gotten better and faster with each release. People who still talk about how slow Java is and how crappy Swing is, are still living in the past. Is it the perfect platform? No, but it has gotten multiple times better than where it was.
The title of being the inventor of the tablet as described by D504,889. Which doesn't mean much because it's a design patent. I'm sure they have a different drawing that shows a 16:9.75 ratio tablet they they will file, get a patent for, and then sue someone else (with less money) with. Or they may have the iPad3 with a glowing logo on the back design patent. They'll then say that the glowing icon is just part of the overall design and sue again with that.
Apple is using court battles as a delay tactic to stop competitors. The whole thing just sucks money that could have been used in a better manner so we are all losers in this. This is just basically going on to generate heat waste with money.
No this legal wrangling has only one point. To place an injunction on the Samsung device wherever a court will let it stick. Patents are used to scare, court battles are just there to draw it all out. Apple will loose, they know that, they're just buying time until the iPad^3GPSTOPBBQ.
Google isn't an "altruistic and idealistic organization that truly cares only about making life better for everyone.
And the sky's blue. What new facet are you trying to add here? Did you not catch that the parent was being sarcastic? Being a big company tends to make you less those other things. I don't think anyone here is surprised by it.
closed-source search-and-advertising platform dependent on selling your personal data to advertising partners.
Wow, you just won't quit on the social commentary. People are out to make a buck, get use to it. That includes Microsoft, Google, Apple, etc... We here at Slashdot have come to terms with this. We don't like it, we'll fight it anyway possible, but it's always going to be there.
hey withhold Android source from non-privileged partners and ship closed technology like Flash, AAC, and MP3 support in Chrome, even as they preach about openness.
Among other things... Geez, you make it sound like one bad drop kills the pond. They also ship open video and audio codecs and Chrome's source in open as well. So unless you're RMS, I'm not seeing the problem here. You have to understand, there are those who think FOSS and FOSS only / those who think FOSS in places and closed in other until an open alternative comes along.
Android is a free product pumped into a new market to maintain the dominance of the core business and kill off competitors who can't afford to compete with an artificial price
The same has been said about Linux et al. New argument please.
The benevolent little tech company from ten years ago is long gone.
Duh. See first paragraph.
Google is another Microsoft and is no better.
Really? Are they paying ARM to put nothing but Android on their hardware like Wintel? Just curious.
Microsoft still elicits a predictable reaction on Slashdot, repetition of the term "FUD" as if it automatically counters all arguments.
Because no one has the time to actually make a three page long argument, also, because that is one of Microsoft's biggest tactics. Look I didn't make it that way, Microsoft did that for us. I wish I could change people's mind to use some else and we can all just assume FUD. It tends to make things clearer on the board. But hey if it ain't broke...
blah, blah, blah...a loophole that Slashdot has left unclosed for years.
Like it or leave it. The latter would very likely reduce the amount of replies I put to Slashdot to people like you, who have this kind of problem with Slashdot.
but there was actually a degree of objectivity that used to shine through in the comment sections. That very rarely occurs today.
Please see my comment about companies and size in the first paragraph. The amount moderators care is inversely related to the amount of traffic. Note the parallel one can draw to say Google, Microsoft, Apple, WalMart, geez we could keep going here...
It's really quite fascinating that there isn't more outcry over the fact that a closed-source product from a corporation has become the gatekeeper for the web
Really? Gatekeeper? I'll remember that when I go though my ISP to get to the web. (note to self: All request to the web go like this me -> ISP -> Google -> web... check!)
if you use Linux for your business, all is forgiven
I'm not sure my opinion counts nor if I forgive a company or not. I really don't base my forgiveness on what OS someone uses, but how they use it. It just seems that Microsoft is usually in the business of being open until the lawyers come out and say no. Google seems to be open and when the lawyers come out they're like, "crap it was GPLed."
Wait, wait, wait... I thought the whole point of NoSQL was that not only were you able to free yourself of schema's and traditional DB related fluff, but you got a subset of features that were tuned to a specific range of use cases.
The fact that NoSQL has no standard level of commonality between implementation has provided fertile ground for programmers to enhance what they feel is important. If we standardize NoSQL then people will begin to focus more on the core functions than the fringe functions, at some point people will forget altogether the fringe points of each implementation and poof, people will soon be writing NoUnQL. I mean, correct me if I wrong, but isn't this exactly the same thing that happened with SQL? Every DB vendor had their own magic voodoo for their DB and then slowly everyone thought SQL was "da bomb" and start focusing on SQL's core functions and optimizing around those functions; that optimizing made magic voodoo in each DB less and less important until we got to the point that DBA's feel TSQL is a bad word.
Huzah! Everything old is new again! Dumb terminals are dead, long live the cloud!
No it doesn't. They specifically break away from JVM specifications because Java's formats are slower and hinder some of both speed and memory optimizations.
I guess the best way to present this would be if I had a patent on eating cereal (which would and should be ruled invalid but let's not get off the point here.) If my method is to grab cereal, grab bowl, grab milk, pour cereal into bowl, pour milk into bowl... put milk up, put cereal up, grab spoon, eat, then just because your method is to leave the box of cereal out until done eating and grab the spoon while getting the bowl just to save time; doesn't mean you haven't infringe on my cereal eating idea. We are both basically eating cereal. I'm with you I hate patents that do this kind of thing, but it is the argument that I am making that has gotten Google into trouble. Both Dalvik and JVM use the same "processes" to load bytecode, preprocess bytecode, look up symbols in native code, etc... The bytecode is different between the two and the steps to process the bytecode are different but the overall effect is the same.
With this definition, anything is everything. Furthermore, law specifically allows for interoperability. But beyond that, there isn't any similarities worth noting as they specifically did not care to retain any interoperability. That's the first I've heard such a claim. If in fact they are making such a claim, its like saying you and I are the exact same person because we happen to have the same hair cut.
Well exactly. I'm not saying its a valid argument, it's pretty weak in my book, but it is an argument none-the-less that is being made. However, I don't know if you analogy is correct but whatever, point being it's a pretty weak argument and I think you got the point. The idea isn't that their is interoperability, I could very well make my own version of Mach-O and it not run on an Apple computer, all I really have to do is change the magic number or just put the static init code in a different place, its still Mach-O just it won't work on Apple. Likewise, I can take a Java class file and very easily change it for register based processing by changing a couple of thing in the class file, it still is a Java class file with just a couple of parts moved around (NOT SAYING that, that's exactly what Google did but I'm just simply illustrating a point that to be different you have to be very different.)
Of course its the same because its the exact same tools UNTIL the dalvik tools are used. After that, the only thing they have in common is the fact they are stored in zip files. With this logic, Oracle is in violation of every zip file format.
I think you are thinking about that point at too high a level. I'm not talking about ZIP files, I am talking about things like moving long pointers and long jump instructions to pre-defined locations to better optimize how code is executed and provide better predictability in the JIT pipe. The fact that those locations are wrapped up in a ZIP file is pretty irrelevant. Google could have used RAR or gzip, it's not the bread that your using on the sandwich that's being questioned it's the contents and how they are ordered. (I must be really hungry because I'm using a lot of food analogies.)
That's a red herring Oracle propaganda position and is not true at all.
Actually that's the FSF propaganda position, and it is very true. Google chose Harmony from Apache which was a questionable move. Google could have used IcedTea which was already GPL and would have been less questionable. I really think Harmony is a great project and I really think that Oracle should rethink their stance on the Java TCK, but they haven't. Thus it has tossed Harmony into question and products derived from it even more so. It is a fairly obvious observation. Build things upon things that are in question will bring your thing into question. Build things upo
Not saying they are valid just answering your question. There are a couple of more and I even think that Oracle was ordered to reduce the claims down to three distinct violations, of which, I am not sure if any of these were cited.
However, Google is in a sort of hot mess right now because all of the patents have to be proven invalid, a recent review of Google employee's email show that they were indeed worried about the legal ramifications of their implementation. With a going back and forth between Google employee's over should a license to Java be acquired before going forward. http://allthingsd.com/20110727/old-email-may-bite-google-in-java-patent-suit/
The underpinning problem with Dalvik is that its implementation follows many JVM specifications. For example:
The binary format, not the actual instructions themselves, follows very closely to Java's binary class format (I think this one is a weak argument, but it is one that Oracle is throwing.)
The method used to pre-process the binary code and package the binary so that it can be pre-processed is very similar in both. (This one is a little bit less weak because the binary headers look almost the same between the two, not true for ELF binary format versus PE/COFF for Windows or Mach-O on Apple.)
Dalvik uses the same method that the JVM uses to resolve references in native code. (Basically both Dalvik and the JVM read memory from the underlying system using the same native code process, the native instructions aren't 1:1 per se but the general method is exactly the same. This could really be up for debate because the method could be argued as pretty generic.)
There are a couple of more but I'm not recalling them right off the top of my head. Let's not make the argument as petty as the use the same language, Java. That's not exactly what Oracle is claiming that Google did. Besides, Google is a bit at fault here. They could have built on top of IcedTea and have a GPL Android platform sans the lawsuits.
Well many in my circle have noted that an immediate roll out of Java7 is not warranted at this time, in fact discouraged. The update 26 of 6 is good enough for most customers now and Java7 should be used in small installations and test beds.
Not dissing what you have here, VMWare support is a biggie in my book, but this is the x.0 release. Maybe we should give Oracle the benefit of the doubt (OMG I'm really saying this?) and wait for them to provide the support later.
Most of those items are using IPv6, at least now. One of the ITU 4G requirements is that the hardware can use IPv6. Most phones bought in the last four years already have IPv6 address from the provider. I noticed that I loose my address on my phone when I leave an EVDO or LTE area with my phone. So maybe 1x networks lack the ability to carry IPv6, really don't know the answer. However, most phones either use IPv6 to talk to tower and IPv4 the rest of the way or dual-stack, depends on the phone and carrier. The lack of any provider having a single common way of rolling out IPv6 has made the implementation of a wholly IPv6 network difficult.
Let me ask you, do you have a million or so to donate to so-and-so's next run for office? NO!? Then what does it matter what you think? Do you actually believe that you have more sway then a lobbyist?! Really?
So with that said, the logical counter would be, well people will cry out and elect new people...blah, blah, blah.
If that was true, if that was true for even a second...Why haven't boycotts or negative word of mouth or whatever else you want to add, worked yet? If so many people are so feed up, why has nothing changed? Do you think that tossing a third party into the mix is really going to change anything?! Seriously are you that blind?!
Yes let's give control over to government so that net neutrality can be decided by lobbyist. Don't worry though, we'll all get a really good show by having the FCC open up the topic to the public, only to ignore every comment made. Sorta like ASTC, HD Radio, Cable card, 700Mhz, etc, etc, etc...
In Congress, one does not find empathy, simply committee. Just remember that.
Uh, yeah it's their property. I didn't know this was a questionable thing. Those "public" things that you just listed are shared between private and public interest, not just public interest, in other words, they are open to all.
Of course, you can take that up with the government, since that were we're taking everything.
Your two options are exactly the same. I'm not sure where you draw the distinction.
I really do not care about the issue. We are boned either way. What I would like to point out is that, and yes I may be over simplifying your POV, you have some happy-go-lucky idea that the government running our Internet is going to be some sort of fix-all for a really stupid problem to begin with.
I really don't care if so-and-so throttles such-and-such. It's their physical property, why shouldn't they get a say in fast it runs? yes, it's all artificial, but so is basically everything else we spend artificial money on. So I'm failing to see why this is such a giant deal? Okay, so Comcast won't be able to throttle your bit-torrent... What's to stop Comcast from paying off a couple of senators to stop bit-torrent? Oh, yeah, the general public. The very same people who have control of the situation right now. Good luck on convincing the general public about your bit-torrent cause or why that is even important to them. Very likely, we will still have all the same problems and absolutely none of the solutions, we've just changed who exactly we get to bitch at. Comcast is beholden to money, the government is beholden to private interest (except on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November). So it's great to know that we'll have yet another layer of ignorance between what we want and what we get when it comes to the Internet.
So please, let's not get delusional. The government is no better than the current system we've got going, except that anything the the government objects to they would then have the power to prevent it from being in the public's Internet. Yea! I can't wait. Seriously, while your at it, why not let the IRS take care of all your tax filing, I'm sure they'll be completely honest about it!!!
So what do you call exactly the "Do Not Call" list? As a question to answer your first question.
Yes, they don't jump on the line and *beep* out what you say, but they and the FTC are more than happy to dole out lawsuits should the receiver not be happy with the information provided. They are more than happy to setup "guidelines" to usage of the PSTN, and they are very happy to utilize those "guidelines" with the idea to censor certain types of activities.
What makes me think they'll censor the Internet? Wikileaks. Child-porn. Illegal music sharing. etc...
Granted that those are all very noble things to block but the government tends to have a heavy handed approach to things, which tends to mess with legal things such as: Wikipedia (seriously what's the FBI thinking?) Regular-porn. Legal file sharing.
So no, I don't think the United States government is an apt institution for controlling the Internet. In fact so, I doubt they could run anything with any caliber of sanity, but that's merely my opinion. It is all a moot point anyway, since they'll have control over the Internet come hell or high water. So eventually I, you, and everyone else will all bask in the glory of what your asking for. So I fail to see the point of contention. You are going to get your way, what are you up in arms about it?
Seriously? Do you actually think that anyone plays by their own ToS? Hence the reason pretty much all ToS have a "We have the ultimate say and there is nothing you can do about it but sulk and try again" clause.
ToS are jokes and exist to only limit what you, the user, can do (as opposed to limit what they, the provider, can do.)
without saying what, exactly, you fear the FCC might do.
Censorship.
The FCC tend to be big on that. The last thing I want on the Internet is nation wide blanket censorship. At least with Apple, Comcast, etc... I can leave them without too much fuss. I cannot leave the United States without incurring a serious cost.
I know that this is completely useless debate, since the government will one way or another have "net neutrality" laws. No matter what we do we're all going to loose, we need to get used to that. I guess I'll just say that I opposed getting screwed by the government before the government "blessed" us with "net neutrality."
Shut up. You're a bank. Just move people's money around for them and don't try to have an opinion.
Well they have to have an opinion, since the United States has a ton of law concerning banks who may or may not help terrorism. Yes, I know WL isn't a terrorist org. but give the US government a chance to try and "connect the dots" and eventually they'll find BofA in the wrong.
So, if you have a problem with BofA's position then you need to take that up with the US government and the billions of laws that banks have to wade through every day. BofA would have been a complete idiot to not make this kind of statement. Just the remotest of hints linking BofA to WL would have netted them a couple of million dollars a day fine. Fighting the US government's opinion would have cost millions more. The position that you wish for BofA to take would have them bleeding money left and right like a suicidal teenager left alone with a shaving razor.
BofA is the biggest target, so duh they're first. I'd expect other banks to follow suit shortly.
Dude you need to get a lawyer ASAP. DMCA is a tool that a lot of companies use to get a pseudo injunction without having to go through all the legal mumbo-jumbo of a judge and what have you. You've got a lot of strikes on you right now. First off this at the bottom of your page. (c)1994-2009 [you email address follows].
You've used that symbol in a context that shows that you remotely know what it is for. Therefore you may remotely understand how it applies to other people's work. So the argument of I'ma small time programmer, I didn't know what I was doing. Isn't going to fly too high.
Second, I don't know how many people have actually downloaded this, but if the number is high, say 50,000+. You need a lawyer really bad because you've cause a giant chunk of damage. 1,000 to 10,000 and yeah they'll come after you, DMCA is just buying them time. 1,000, then they just want your crap off the market, you'd be wise to write their lawyer a letter expressing your deep regret, or better yet just get a freaking lawyer!
Point being is, and this strictly applies to only your case, you need a lawyer and you need one fast to help you mitigate (NOT FIGHT) this. Again, the DMCA is just a stalling out more sales tactic, the actual law(s) that you've broken will be brought to your attention in court.
Basically that's absolutely how it will go down. At some point during the trial the feds will drop the case since the judge is extremely hostile.
The only change is that they can't pull this guy into court again, but that's not to say tomorrow they arrest some other guy and try again with a friendlier judge.
Slashdot Mirror
Arguments for slow Java are so 1990's. Every Java application, desktop or otherwise, I have written has been very snappy, very responsive. Swing has always had places where you can get caught making your own application slow to load or slow to respond. I believe that the community and Sun have really ushered in conventions to mitigate that. SwingWorker (part of core Java Swing), Timing Framework [java.net], JPA (especially our friends at Eclipse), and other community frameworks have really changed the way coders write Java desktop applications in ways that avoid a lot of the pitfalls that came with the 1.1, 1.2 and so on versions of Java.
I think this is the reason why Oracle really needs to embrace the community. It has been because of them that Java has gotten better and faster with each release. People who still talk about how slow Java is and how crappy Swing is, are still living in the past. Is it the perfect platform? No, but it has gotten multiple times better than where it was.
The title of being the inventor of the tablet as described by D504,889. Which doesn't mean much because it's a design patent. I'm sure they have a different drawing that shows a 16:9.75 ratio tablet they they will file, get a patent for, and then sue someone else (with less money) with. Or they may have the iPad3 with a glowing logo on the back design patent. They'll then say that the glowing icon is just part of the overall design and sue again with that.
Apple is using court battles as a delay tactic to stop competitors. The whole thing just sucks money that could have been used in a better manner so we are all losers in this. This is just basically going on to generate heat waste with money.
Blame the lawyers. They're always finding a reason to sue someone. Of course, blaming them may get you sued.
No this legal wrangling has only one point. To place an injunction on the Samsung device wherever a court will let it stick. Patents are used to scare, court battles are just there to draw it all out. Apple will loose, they know that, they're just buying time until the iPad^3GPSTOPBBQ.
Google isn't an "altruistic and idealistic organization that truly cares only about making life better for everyone.
And the sky's blue. What new facet are you trying to add here? Did you not catch that the parent was being sarcastic? Being a big company tends to make you less those other things. I don't think anyone here is surprised by it.
closed-source search-and-advertising platform dependent on selling your personal data to advertising partners.
Wow, you just won't quit on the social commentary. People are out to make a buck, get use to it. That includes Microsoft, Google, Apple, etc... We here at Slashdot have come to terms with this. We don't like it, we'll fight it anyway possible, but it's always going to be there.
hey withhold Android source from non-privileged partners and ship closed technology like Flash, AAC, and MP3 support in Chrome, even as they preach about openness.
Among other things... Geez, you make it sound like one bad drop kills the pond. They also ship open video and audio codecs and Chrome's source in open as well. So unless you're RMS, I'm not seeing the problem here. You have to understand, there are those who think FOSS and FOSS only / those who think FOSS in places and closed in other until an open alternative comes along.
Android is a free product pumped into a new market to maintain the dominance of the core business and kill off competitors who can't afford to compete with an artificial price
The same has been said about Linux et al. New argument please.
The benevolent little tech company from ten years ago is long gone.
Duh. See first paragraph.
Google is another Microsoft and is no better.
Really? Are they paying ARM to put nothing but Android on their hardware like Wintel? Just curious.
Microsoft still elicits a predictable reaction on Slashdot, repetition of the term "FUD" as if it automatically counters all arguments.
Because no one has the time to actually make a three page long argument, also, because that is one of Microsoft's biggest tactics. Look I didn't make it that way, Microsoft did that for us. I wish I could change people's mind to use some else and we can all just assume FUD. It tends to make things clearer on the board. But hey if it ain't broke...
blah, blah, blah...a loophole that Slashdot has left unclosed for years.
Like it or leave it. The latter would very likely reduce the amount of replies I put to Slashdot to people like you, who have this kind of problem with Slashdot.
but there was actually a degree of objectivity that used to shine through in the comment sections. That very rarely occurs today.
Please see my comment about companies and size in the first paragraph. The amount moderators care is inversely related to the amount of traffic. Note the parallel one can draw to say Google, Microsoft, Apple, WalMart, geez we could keep going here...
It's really quite fascinating that there isn't more outcry over the fact that a closed-source product from a corporation has become the gatekeeper for the web
Really? Gatekeeper? I'll remember that when I go though my ISP to get to the web. (note to self: All request to the web go like this me -> ISP -> Google -> web... check!)
if you use Linux for your business, all is forgiven
I'm not sure my opinion counts nor if I forgive a company or not. I really don't base my forgiveness on what OS someone uses, but how they use it. It just seems that Microsoft is usually in the business of being open until the lawyers come out and say no. Google seems to be open and when the lawyers come out they're like, "crap it was GPLed."
are a pa
Microsoft is referring to the fact that Google withholds Android source from non-privileged partners.
Really and what do you think Microsoft does with its source code to WP7 with their partners?
Intel is moving into cooling business, I thought we knew this already? Go check their site.
Wait, wait, wait... I thought the whole point of NoSQL was that not only were you able to free yourself of schema's and traditional DB related fluff, but you got a subset of features that were tuned to a specific range of use cases.
The fact that NoSQL has no standard level of commonality between implementation has provided fertile ground for programmers to enhance what they feel is important. If we standardize NoSQL then people will begin to focus more on the core functions than the fringe functions, at some point people will forget altogether the fringe points of each implementation and poof, people will soon be writing NoUnQL. I mean, correct me if I wrong, but isn't this exactly the same thing that happened with SQL? Every DB vendor had their own magic voodoo for their DB and then slowly everyone thought SQL was "da bomb" and start focusing on SQL's core functions and optimizing around those functions; that optimizing made magic voodoo in each DB less and less important until we got to the point that DBA's feel TSQL is a bad word.
Huzah! Everything old is new again! Dumb terminals are dead, long live the cloud!
Very valid statement. Some of Oracle's "patents" are of questionable "validity."
No it doesn't. They specifically break away from JVM specifications because Java's formats are slower and hinder some of both speed and memory optimizations.
I guess the best way to present this would be if I had a patent on eating cereal (which would and should be ruled invalid but let's not get off the point here.) If my method is to grab cereal, grab bowl, grab milk, pour cereal into bowl, pour milk into bowl ... put milk up, put cereal up, grab spoon, eat, then just because your method is to leave the box of cereal out until done eating and grab the spoon while getting the bowl just to save time; doesn't mean you haven't infringe on my cereal eating idea. We are both basically eating cereal. I'm with you I hate patents that do this kind of thing, but it is the argument that I am making that has gotten Google into trouble. Both Dalvik and JVM use the same "processes" to load bytecode, preprocess bytecode, look up symbols in native code, etc... The bytecode is different between the two and the steps to process the bytecode are different but the overall effect is the same.
With this definition, anything is everything. Furthermore, law specifically allows for interoperability. But beyond that, there isn't any similarities worth noting as they specifically did not care to retain any interoperability. That's the first I've heard such a claim. If in fact they are making such a claim, its like saying you and I are the exact same person because we happen to have the same hair cut.
Well exactly. I'm not saying its a valid argument, it's pretty weak in my book, but it is an argument none-the-less that is being made. However, I don't know if you analogy is correct but whatever, point being it's a pretty weak argument and I think you got the point. The idea isn't that their is interoperability, I could very well make my own version of Mach-O and it not run on an Apple computer, all I really have to do is change the magic number or just put the static init code in a different place, its still Mach-O just it won't work on Apple. Likewise, I can take a Java class file and very easily change it for register based processing by changing a couple of thing in the class file, it still is a Java class file with just a couple of parts moved around (NOT SAYING that, that's exactly what Google did but I'm just simply illustrating a point that to be different you have to be very different.)
Of course its the same because its the exact same tools UNTIL the dalvik tools are used. After that, the only thing they have in common is the fact they are stored in zip files. With this logic, Oracle is in violation of every zip file format.
I think you are thinking about that point at too high a level. I'm not talking about ZIP files, I am talking about things like moving long pointers and long jump instructions to pre-defined locations to better optimize how code is executed and provide better predictability in the JIT pipe. The fact that those locations are wrapped up in a ZIP file is pretty irrelevant. Google could have used RAR or gzip, it's not the bread that your using on the sandwich that's being questioned it's the contents and how they are ordered. (I must be really hungry because I'm using a lot of food analogies.)
That's a red herring Oracle propaganda position and is not true at all.
Actually that's the FSF propaganda position, and it is very true. Google chose Harmony from Apache which was a questionable move. Google could have used IcedTea which was already GPL and would have been less questionable. I really think Harmony is a great project and I really think that Oracle should rethink their stance on the Java TCK, but they haven't. Thus it has tossed Harmony into question and products derived from it even more so. It is a fairly obvious observation. Build things upon things that are in question will bring your thing into question. Build things upo
Some of the ones still outstanding:
#5,966,702
#6,910,205
#7,426,720
Not saying they are valid just answering your question. There are a couple of more and I even think that Oracle was ordered to reduce the claims down to three distinct violations, of which, I am not sure if any of these were cited.
However, Google is in a sort of hot mess right now because all of the patents have to be proven invalid, a recent review of Google employee's email show that they were indeed worried about the legal ramifications of their implementation. With a going back and forth between Google employee's over should a license to Java be acquired before going forward. http://allthingsd.com/20110727/old-email-may-bite-google-in-java-patent-suit/
The underpinning problem with Dalvik is that its implementation follows many JVM specifications. For example:
The binary format, not the actual instructions themselves, follows very closely to Java's binary class format (I think this one is a weak argument, but it is one that Oracle is throwing.)
The method used to pre-process the binary code and package the binary so that it can be pre-processed is very similar in both. (This one is a little bit less weak because the binary headers look almost the same between the two, not true for ELF binary format versus PE/COFF for Windows or Mach-O on Apple.)
Dalvik uses the same method that the JVM uses to resolve references in native code. (Basically both Dalvik and the JVM read memory from the underlying system using the same native code process, the native instructions aren't 1:1 per se but the general method is exactly the same. This could really be up for debate because the method could be argued as pretty generic.)
There are a couple of more but I'm not recalling them right off the top of my head. Let's not make the argument as petty as the use the same language, Java. That's not exactly what Oracle is claiming that Google did. Besides, Google is a bit at fault here. They could have built on top of IcedTea and have a GPL Android platform sans the lawsuits.
Well many in my circle have noted that an immediate roll out of Java7 is not warranted at this time, in fact discouraged. The update 26 of 6 is good enough for most customers now and Java7 should be used in small installations and test beds.
Not dissing what you have here, VMWare support is a biggie in my book, but this is the x.0 release. Maybe we should give Oracle the benefit of the doubt (OMG I'm really saying this?) and wait for them to provide the support later.
Why do I find myself wanting to follow that up with, "we didn't start the fire..."?
Most of those items are using IPv6, at least now. One of the ITU 4G requirements is that the hardware can use IPv6. Most phones bought in the last four years already have IPv6 address from the provider. I noticed that I loose my address on my phone when I leave an EVDO or LTE area with my phone. So maybe 1x networks lack the ability to carry IPv6, really don't know the answer. However, most phones either use IPv6 to talk to tower and IPv4 the rest of the way or dual-stack, depends on the phone and carrier. The lack of any provider having a single common way of rolling out IPv6 has made the implementation of a wholly IPv6 network difficult.
Don't know about eBooks like Kindle, Nook, etc...
I guess the proof is in the pudding.
Sure, that's exactly how it doesn't work.
Let me ask you, do you have a million or so to donate to so-and-so's next run for office? NO!? Then what does it matter what you think? Do you actually believe that you have more sway then a lobbyist?! Really?
So with that said, the logical counter would be, well people will cry out and elect new people...blah, blah, blah.
If that was true, if that was true for even a second...Why haven't boycotts or negative word of mouth or whatever else you want to add, worked yet? If so many people are so feed up, why has nothing changed? Do you think that tossing a third party into the mix is really going to change anything?! Seriously are you that blind?!
Yes let's give control over to government so that net neutrality can be decided by lobbyist. Don't worry though, we'll all get a really good show by having the FCC open up the topic to the public, only to ignore every comment made. Sorta like ASTC, HD Radio, Cable card, 700Mhz, etc, etc, etc...
In Congress, one does not find empathy, simply committee. Just remember that.
Uh, yeah it's their property. I didn't know this was a questionable thing. Those "public" things that you just listed are shared between private and public interest, not just public interest, in other words, they are open to all.
Of course, you can take that up with the government, since that were we're taking everything.
Your two options are exactly the same. I'm not sure where you draw the distinction.
I really do not care about the issue. We are boned either way. What I would like to point out is that, and yes I may be over simplifying your POV, you have some happy-go-lucky idea that the government running our Internet is going to be some sort of fix-all for a really stupid problem to begin with.
I really don't care if so-and-so throttles such-and-such. It's their physical property, why shouldn't they get a say in fast it runs? yes, it's all artificial, but so is basically everything else we spend artificial money on. So I'm failing to see why this is such a giant deal? Okay, so Comcast won't be able to throttle your bit-torrent... What's to stop Comcast from paying off a couple of senators to stop bit-torrent? Oh, yeah, the general public. The very same people who have control of the situation right now. Good luck on convincing the general public about your bit-torrent cause or why that is even important to them. Very likely, we will still have all the same problems and absolutely none of the solutions, we've just changed who exactly we get to bitch at. Comcast is beholden to money, the government is beholden to private interest (except on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November). So it's great to know that we'll have yet another layer of ignorance between what we want and what we get when it comes to the Internet.
So please, let's not get delusional. The government is no better than the current system we've got going, except that anything the the government objects to they would then have the power to prevent it from being in the public's Internet. Yea! I can't wait. Seriously, while your at it, why not let the IRS take care of all your tax filing, I'm sure they'll be completely honest about it!!!
So what do you call exactly the "Do Not Call" list? As a question to answer your first question.
Yes, they don't jump on the line and *beep* out what you say, but they and the FTC are more than happy to dole out lawsuits should the receiver not be happy with the information provided. They are more than happy to setup "guidelines" to usage of the PSTN, and they are very happy to utilize those "guidelines" with the idea to censor certain types of activities.
What makes me think they'll censor the Internet? Wikileaks. Child-porn. Illegal music sharing. etc...
Granted that those are all very noble things to block but the government tends to have a heavy handed approach to things, which tends to mess with legal things such as:
Wikipedia (seriously what's the FBI thinking?) Regular-porn. Legal file sharing.
So no, I don't think the United States government is an apt institution for controlling the Internet. In fact so, I doubt they could run anything with any caliber of sanity, but that's merely my opinion. It is all a moot point anyway, since they'll have control over the Internet come hell or high water. So eventually I, you, and everyone else will all bask in the glory of what your asking for. So I fail to see the point of contention. You are going to get your way, what are you up in arms about it?
Seriously? Do you actually think that anyone plays by their own ToS? Hence the reason pretty much all ToS have a "We have the ultimate say and there is nothing you can do about it but sulk and try again" clause.
ToS are jokes and exist to only limit what you, the user, can do (as opposed to limit what they, the provider, can do.)
without saying what, exactly, you fear the FCC might do.
Censorship.
The FCC tend to be big on that. The last thing I want on the Internet is nation wide blanket censorship. At least with Apple, Comcast, etc... I can leave them without too much fuss. I cannot leave the United States without incurring a serious cost.
I know that this is completely useless debate, since the government will one way or another have "net neutrality" laws. No matter what we do we're all going to loose, we need to get used to that. I guess I'll just say that I opposed getting screwed by the government before the government "blessed" us with "net neutrality."
Republican / democrat, doesn't matter. Lobbyist win!
Shut up. You're a bank. Just move people's money around for them and don't try to have an opinion.
Well they have to have an opinion, since the United States has a ton of law concerning banks who may or may not help terrorism. Yes, I know WL isn't a terrorist org. but give the US government a chance to try and "connect the dots" and eventually they'll find BofA in the wrong.
So, if you have a problem with BofA's position then you need to take that up with the US government and the billions of laws that banks have to wade through every day. BofA would have been a complete idiot to not make this kind of statement. Just the remotest of hints linking BofA to WL would have netted them a couple of million dollars a day fine. Fighting the US government's opinion would have cost millions more. The position that you wish for BofA to take would have them bleeding money left and right like a suicidal teenager left alone with a shaving razor.
BofA is the biggest target, so duh they're first. I'd expect other banks to follow suit shortly.
Dude you need to get a lawyer ASAP. DMCA is a tool that a lot of companies use to get a pseudo injunction without having to go through all the legal mumbo-jumbo of a judge and what have you. You've got a lot of strikes on you right now. First off this at the bottom of your page. (c)1994-2009 [you email address follows].
You've used that symbol in a context that shows that you remotely know what it is for. Therefore you may remotely understand how it applies to other people's work. So the argument of I'ma small time programmer, I didn't know what I was doing. Isn't going to fly too high.
Second, I don't know how many people have actually downloaded this, but if the number is high, say 50,000+. You need a lawyer really bad because you've cause a giant chunk of damage. 1,000 to 10,000 and yeah they'll come after you, DMCA is just buying them time. 1,000, then they just want your crap off the market, you'd be wise to write their lawyer a letter expressing your deep regret, or better yet just get a freaking lawyer!
Point being is, and this strictly applies to only your case, you need a lawyer and you need one fast to help you mitigate (NOT FIGHT) this. Again, the DMCA is just a stalling out more sales tactic, the actual law(s) that you've broken will be brought to your attention in court.
Basically that's absolutely how it will go down. At some point during the trial the feds will drop the case since the judge is extremely hostile.
The only change is that they can't pull this guy into court again, but that's not to say tomorrow they arrest some other guy and try again with a friendlier judge.