I take issues with the very last comment (note: the he/she thing was obviously a typo, so I'm not addressing that) -- you clearly haven't taken an engineering ethics course. Classic examples:
1) Let's say you created a regular looking chair and state on a big tag attached to the chair, in bright red letters, "you can only sit on this chair and this chair isn't designed to be stood upon". If someone later stands on the chair and it broke, then you, the designer/manufacturer/whatever, are still responsible for the injury in the court of laws. "Foreseeable misuse" is what engineering ethics call it, and you're at fault.
2) If a ceiling fan hits a baby while a parent is throwing the baby up and down, it's not a "foreseeable misuse", and the parent has no grounds of suing the company that made the ceiling fan.
IANAL, but it's pretty clear from planking and past social network-inspired activities that such a "speeding trophy" falls into category 1 (from my perspective, and probably most jurors).
It seems like the present laws surrounding patents confound multiple aspects of the economics of inventions: the invention itself, use of invention, licensing, and protection against litigation. It's reasonable to assume that patents should lead to actual economic product, rather than just a piece of paper for trolling. Therefore, the suggestion of commercializing patents within a year is good.
However, there are cases where a person/company thinks of an idea, has no immediate purpose of putting this idea to use, but is afraid of litigation. To solve this issue, there should be something akin to trade secrets, but filed with the USPTO, dated, and sealed. If a second party later patents the same idea and sues the first party when the first party finally gets to implementing it, then the first party can unseal the filing to dismiss the patent suit.
If this is how everything's been working already, then I'll go back to hiding under my rock.
Strain the food supply? No, it won't. That's exactly the same argument people made in the middle of the 20th century about how human population growth will drain all of our resources by the end of the 20th century. Why did it not happen? Because of a mix of technological and economic reasons. I don't need to explain the technology part, but the economics part made sure that people decided to have less babies.
Put it simply, if each pair of parents only had one baby, soon we will have 0 population growth, even if everyone lives forever.
Do you have HAXM installed? My experience indicate that full boot with HAXM installed is much, much faster than a regular boot on-device. Apps also run a lot faster in the emulator than on the device. The computer is a 2013 MBP, while the device is a Nexus 6.
Apple has been playing the class warfare/have vs have-not/status symbol card for a while now. It plays to exactly what we (the general masses) intrinsically fear -- being singled out, not being "in", not fashionable, looking like a dork, etc.... It's also one of the reasons why the 99% hate the 1% -- because the 1% flaunt their wealth in front of others. Do you want to be flaunted to? Or do you want to do the flaunting to those plebeian Android/Windows/BB/feature phone users?
We have to realize that Apple is a fashion company first, a tech company second. Blue bubbles, anyone? Or are you "green with envy"?
Webassembly runs inside the browser's sandbox, which is at least as good as running it natively on your OS in terms of security. That and NaCl/asm.js has been around already, so I'm not sure how this will be an issue.
That's a pretty naive interpretation of Webassembly. Let's address your comments.
1) Yes, the target audience are in the native code camp. But outside of mobile, there is no good delivery mechanism, other than the web. This is basically doing that: brining the web to native apps. 2) There is no cross platform sandbox for running native apps, and this delivers on that. All modern browsers at least attempt at security, whereas non mobile platforms offer very little in terms of security against native apps. 3) Computers aren't getting "fast enough" (or much faster, for that matter). Especially not for mobile, which will always be slow because of power requirements. This spec will greatly help with that.
So it serves many purposes, and I think is a wonderful boon to the web.
YT hasn't released Red in Argentina doesn't mean they don't want to. Do you think they have the resources to simultaneously come to an agreement with all copyright holders at the same time, do all the market research, marketing, and engineering resources? Whining like this just makes you look like an entitled brat.
And I would like to know which one of those annoying ads came from Google. Blaming advertising in its entirety is like saying all web browsers suck because IE6 was such a POS.
I did a random sampling of Ads from sites I read from. The ones I see featuring ads that you mentioned are from advertisers like Taboola, or what not. Not one of them was from Google ads. The only Google ads that caught my attention (i.e. non-text ads) were quite relevant ads on/. itself. Ads such as semiconductor gadgets and cloud software solutions. So which one of Google's ad network did you see those advertisements from?
Just like a pharma company doesn't really need you to take every drug they manufacture, Google doesn't need to get your info with every software they make. You either think that the vast majority of Google engineers are moral-less bastards, or do I sense a hint of sour grapes?
Apple releases iOS when they feel like it. Google releases Android semi-annually (until recently, which I'm sure the security updates are exactly that -- fixing vulnerabilities). The fact that the release process was such a PITA has no relation to how much Android devs were hardening their system.
In ART, the apk is already in dex format (done by the build tools). On device, they are recompiled to the oat format. This last step is also what's done again in the optimization step, since as libs change, the dex needs to be "relinked" to the zygote image. See here.
When did I talk about equality between police and civilians? I never did and neither did the article, so I have no idea what you're responding to. On the other hand, I'm referring to the original article, where the police is afraid of doing their job because they're scrutinized for their work, perhaps even taken out of context. I think you lacking reading comprehension and setting up a straw man is reality.
And what makes you think they don't? And if they do admit it internally, what good will it do to announce it externally? You seem to equate silence to ignoring the issue.
Yes, yes, a handful of police officers breaking the law means all police officers are assholes. Just like a couple of citizens breaking the law means all citizens are assholes. Great job, everyone.
Honestly, this is simple to solve. The police should start taking videos of everything they do as well. If an edited video pops up of them doing bad things, then they can simply post the video from their perspective. Now no more "look at this video of a cop beating this innocent man" AFTER the supposed "innocent man" kicks the officer, except not on camera or edited out. Mass surveillance works in every way. Govt. -> public -> police -> public.
What's wrong with that? Lots of people are trying to live forever. You know that guy who owns Oracle? He wants to live forever too, plus probably every other billionaire. Hell, all emperors of China tried to live forever. Larry/Sergey are the only ones who are doing it with the expressed purpose of helping humankind.
Slashdot Mirror
I take issues with the very last comment (note: the he/she thing was obviously a typo, so I'm not addressing that) -- you clearly haven't taken an engineering ethics course. Classic examples:
1) Let's say you created a regular looking chair and state on a big tag attached to the chair, in bright red letters, "you can only sit on this chair and this chair isn't designed to be stood upon". If someone later stands on the chair and it broke, then you, the designer/manufacturer/whatever, are still responsible for the injury in the court of laws. "Foreseeable misuse" is what engineering ethics call it, and you're at fault.
2) If a ceiling fan hits a baby while a parent is throwing the baby up and down, it's not a "foreseeable misuse", and the parent has no grounds of suing the company that made the ceiling fan.
IANAL, but it's pretty clear from planking and past social network-inspired activities that such a "speeding trophy" falls into category 1 (from my perspective, and probably most jurors).
It seems like the present laws surrounding patents confound multiple aspects of the economics of inventions: the invention itself, use of invention, licensing, and protection against litigation. It's reasonable to assume that patents should lead to actual economic product, rather than just a piece of paper for trolling. Therefore, the suggestion of commercializing patents within a year is good.
However, there are cases where a person/company thinks of an idea, has no immediate purpose of putting this idea to use, but is afraid of litigation. To solve this issue, there should be something akin to trade secrets, but filed with the USPTO, dated, and sealed. If a second party later patents the same idea and sues the first party when the first party finally gets to implementing it, then the first party can unseal the filing to dismiss the patent suit.
If this is how everything's been working already, then I'll go back to hiding under my rock.
Strain the food supply? No, it won't. That's exactly the same argument people made in the middle of the 20th century about how human population growth will drain all of our resources by the end of the 20th century. Why did it not happen? Because of a mix of technological and economic reasons. I don't need to explain the technology part, but the economics part made sure that people decided to have less babies.
Put it simply, if each pair of parents only had one baby, soon we will have 0 population growth, even if everyone lives forever.
Isn't this it?
Do you have HAXM installed? My experience indicate that full boot with HAXM installed is much, much faster than a regular boot on-device. Apps also run a lot faster in the emulator than on the device. The computer is a 2013 MBP, while the device is a Nexus 6.
Apple has been playing the class warfare/have vs have-not/status symbol card for a while now. It plays to exactly what we (the general masses) intrinsically fear -- being singled out, not being "in", not fashionable, looking like a dork, etc.... It's also one of the reasons why the 99% hate the 1% -- because the 1% flaunt their wealth in front of others. Do you want to be flaunted to? Or do you want to do the flaunting to those plebeian Android/Windows/BB/feature phone users?
We have to realize that Apple is a fashion company first, a tech company second. Blue bubbles, anyone? Or are you "green with envy"?
Webassembly runs inside the browser's sandbox, which is at least as good as running it natively on your OS in terms of security. That and NaCl/asm.js has been around already, so I'm not sure how this will be an issue.
That's a pretty naive interpretation of Webassembly. Let's address your comments.
1) Yes, the target audience are in the native code camp. But outside of mobile, there is no good delivery mechanism, other than the web. This is basically doing that: brining the web to native apps.
2) There is no cross platform sandbox for running native apps, and this delivers on that. All modern browsers at least attempt at security, whereas non mobile platforms offer very little in terms of security against native apps.
3) Computers aren't getting "fast enough" (or much faster, for that matter). Especially not for mobile, which will always be slow because of power requirements. This spec will greatly help with that.
So it serves many purposes, and I think is a wonderful boon to the web.
Well, the improved self-learnt system is, by their definition, their next version.
YT hasn't released Red in Argentina doesn't mean they don't want to. Do you think they have the resources to simultaneously come to an agreement with all copyright holders at the same time, do all the market research, marketing, and engineering resources? Whining like this just makes you look like an entitled brat.
What makes you think Radiohead has chosen to monetize? That is also configurable as well.
And I would like to know which one of those annoying ads came from Google. Blaming advertising in its entirety is like saying all web browsers suck because IE6 was such a POS.
I did a random sampling of Ads from sites I read from. The ones I see featuring ads that you mentioned are from advertisers like Taboola, or what not. Not one of them was from Google ads. The only Google ads that caught my attention (i.e. non-text ads) were quite relevant ads on /. itself. Ads such as semiconductor gadgets and cloud software solutions. So which one of Google's ad network did you see those advertisements from?
Just like a pharma company doesn't really need you to take every drug they manufacture, Google doesn't need to get your info with every software they make. You either think that the vast majority of Google engineers are moral-less bastards, or do I sense a hint of sour grapes?
Apple releases iOS when they feel like it. Google releases Android semi-annually (until recently, which I'm sure the security updates are exactly that -- fixing vulnerabilities). The fact that the release process was such a PITA has no relation to how much Android devs were hardening their system.
Jetbrains doesn't provide the Android Studio platform, they provide the underlying base editor of the Android Studio platform.
In ART, the apk is already in dex format (done by the build tools). On device, they are recompiled to the oat format. This last step is also what's done again in the optimization step, since as libs change, the dex needs to be "relinked" to the zygote image. See here.
Isn't webkit...Apple? Android weaned itself off of webkit a while ago.
Isn't the Google self driving car supposed to be cheap?
When did I talk about equality between police and civilians? I never did and neither did the article, so I have no idea what you're responding to. On the other hand, I'm referring to the original article, where the police is afraid of doing their job because they're scrutinized for their work, perhaps even taken out of context. I think you lacking reading comprehension and setting up a straw man is reality.
And what makes you think they don't? And if they do admit it internally, what good will it do to announce it externally? You seem to equate silence to ignoring the issue.
Low income in Palo Alto area? What's that? $200k annual household income? :P
You have to first go to school before you can drop out. :)
Yes, yes, a handful of police officers breaking the law means all police officers are assholes. Just like a couple of citizens breaking the law means all citizens are assholes. Great job, everyone.
Honestly, this is simple to solve. The police should start taking videos of everything they do as well. If an edited video pops up of them doing bad things, then they can simply post the video from their perspective. Now no more "look at this video of a cop beating this innocent man" AFTER the supposed "innocent man" kicks the officer, except not on camera or edited out. Mass surveillance works in every way. Govt. -> public -> police -> public.
What's wrong with that? Lots of people are trying to live forever. You know that guy who owns Oracle? He wants to live forever too, plus probably every other billionaire. Hell, all emperors of China tried to live forever. Larry/Sergey are the only ones who are doing it with the expressed purpose of helping humankind.