Thanks for pointing that out. I had looked for something like this, but could not find it. I guess I should have tried posting to a forum. While it does handle the simple example that I gave, it does not seem to provide the general functionality needed in an easy way. What if you have a block of data that is more complex than simple integers? Even if you are handling stereo data, you would rather break it up on a frame boundary. Java just does not have direct memory manipulation that is needed for some high performance applications.
I think they were expecting better performance for two reasons; it is one of the newest drives on the market and it has a precedent setting 32 MB of on-drive cache. The fact that this drive can be outperformed by older, cheaper drives is crucial information in purchasing decisions. Their conclusion really says it all, that you should really only buy this drive if you absolutely need the extra capacity.
You are right in a way. Most people do not need pointer arithmetic, but it becomes very useful when you are working with external blocks of data. For example, I was writing some audio capture code in Java and with it you are passed byte arrays. In Java, you cannot simply treat this as a block of data because it is an object. It makes doing things like 16+ bit audio quite annoying. With pointer semantics I can simply treat the byte array like a short array and be done with it. There are many applications that deal with such external blocks of data that also need high performance, which requires the use of memory pointers. To completely replace C/C++, a language must allow this kind of direct memory manipulation.
Personally, I hate the "Big 4" record companies, but they are not the ones that I want to protect. Those organizations have the money and power to fight companies like YouTube with hordes of lawyers. They will fight to keep their profit margin even when their business model is becoming more obsolete every year. My concerns are to the copyright holders who don't have that kind of money and power. The ones who, whether by choice or not, are not represented by large corporations. It is simply not a reasonable expectation for an individual to police this kind of thing and fight the likes of Google/YouTube. I always look at it from the perspective of those who have the least power and resources and consider what is fair for them. The Internet should be a great platform for artists of any digital media to connect directly with their fans.
This discussion is about YouTube, not ISPs. YouTube's current business model as a content distributor is clearly different than that of a typical ISP that acts as a courier.
Do child porn rings really do that? That is a pretty smart idea. I can just see the headlines now, "Why do child pornography rings and Al-Qeada sleeper cells frequent used music shops!? Find out more at 10:00!"
YouTube is not a simple hosting service. YouTube is blindly serving content from unknown sources for ad-generated profit on pages it completely controls. As long as they do that, they should carry the accountability. If they instead move to a model that places ownership, profitability, and accountability to the uploaders, then they can stand on the same legal leg that an ISP stands on by being a middle-man service provider. Any takedown requests would be forwarded to the users uploading infringing content and they would only intervene when necessary.
You make some good points, but your last point seems to illustrate the problem. Assume that Comedy Central tells YouTube to stop serving any clips of the Daily Show longer than 30 seconds. YouTube can take down the current clips, but does not seem to have the infrastructure to make sure no more clips are successfully uploaded. This leads to Comedy Central having to regularly police YouTube to make sure such content gets taken down. The copyright holder should not have to constantly police YouTube when the request to block/take down the content has already been given. The problem is that YouTube does not seem to have any infrastructure in place to stop such repeat offenses. YouTube continues to make money and there does not seem to be a single penalty for doing so using illegal content. I would liken it to punishing a shop-lifter by simply making him return the merchandise when you know he is a repeat offender. He will keep doing it because most of the time he gets away and when he doesn't, there is no consequence. Like I have been trying to say, they are taking advantage of the system. Either a judge needs to make a ruling to set a legal precedent one way or the other for this kind of situation, or new laws need to be put in place to address this kind of behavior.
I did not say "takedown notice", I said "takedown". If they do admit to serving infringing material then they most likely also made money from copyright infringment. Last time I checked, you are not allowed to profit from your crimes. If they are allowed to keep the profits then a precedent is set to let them serve and make money off illegal content until somebody catches them. At which point they say, "oops, sorry", take it down, and some user just posts it again under a different title. That is definitely not an ethical way to run a business and it should not be legal.
I was not contradicting myself. I was trying to point out that YouTube is taking advantage of the law. Their position is simply unethical. (This example has been used a few times in this thread now) Look at a used CD store as an example. If they started buying burned CD-R copies of albums from customers and selling them, that would be completely unacceptable. Would it be fair for them to say, "What do you expect me to do? The customer said it was real."? No, instead they look at the CD-R and tell the customer to take a hike. YouTube seems to think they are above such due diligence and therefore I believe they are abusing the law.
User generated media becomes irrelevant if it that much work to vet every piece that goes into it Perhaps the problem lies in YouTube not fully embracing the idea of user generated content. Since YouTube currently is the one making all of the money (I have heard of possible changes, but do not know any specifics) through ad-generated profit, the content becomes theirs when it is uploaded. If YouTube went to a model that placed real accountability and profitability into the hands of the users, then they would have a case for shifting the blame to the users. Their current model seems to take advantage of the system and possible ambiguity in their legal position.
Check another one of my replies for examples of "due diligence". My point is that YouTube is not performing due diligence. To do so would, and could, never weed out all violating material. If they had humans screening every clip they could weed out the ones that blatantly violate copyright such as the clips that are merely photo slideshows with some musicians newest song playing. But, like I said, they hide under the fact that their immense volume would make doing this too expensive to still turn a good profit. Not performing due diligence because it would rip away your profits should be an indication that your business model is not sound. A used CD store would not buy a CD that is burned onto a JVC CD-R, likewise YouTube should not accept blatantly copyright infringing video clips.
That's allright. Copyright holders spit in the face of their customers. Don't lump all copyright holders together like that. Not every person who writes a song, book, etc is bad just because the laws governing their rights are not fair. The idea of copyright is good because it can protect the right of content creators to make money from their work, but the current laws governing copyright in the United States are bad.
If you bother to read my whole comment, I stated that the current laws clearly were not written with this kind of situation in mind. In the cases you mentioned, there is always human interaction. If a customer tries to sell blatantly illegal copies of a CD, the shop clerk would see this and not accept the CD. That is performing due diligence. I don't think anybody would hold the store at fault if they accidentally purchased an exact copy that they believed to be valid. YouTube is not performing such due diligence because they took the human out of the loop and let an automated system handle the content. There are tons of videos on YouTube that are blatant violations that any screener could pick out. If they performed such screening, then copyright holders would not be up in arms because the problem would be much smaller. It is all about performing reasonable due diligence, but claiming that it is prohibitively expensive in time and money to do just because you have such high volume is not an excuse.
Google/YouTube hides under the fact that US copyright law puts the responsibility of reporting violation on the copyright holders. The problem is that a copyright holder should not be reasonably expected to scrape all of YouTube and all other similar sites every day/hour to look for violations just to have somebody else repost the video after it is taken down. I believe in fair use, but YouTube just spits in the face of copyright holders by throwing up their hands as if it is completely beyond their control. YouTube doesn't want to invest the time and money to perform their due diligence, but expects copyright holders to do it for them. It is clear that the laws on the books were written when publishing or broadcasting content was out of the reach of normal people. The law does not reflect any of the challenges faced by the current situation.
Perhaps a video takedown should also spur relinquishing all profits generated by the infringing video to the copyright holders. Perhaps then the copyright holders would see hunting violating clips on YouTube a worth-while use of time and YouTube would be more careful about what they allow to be posted. Of course, YouTube would probably give the excuse that it would just be too hard to track earnings in such an isolated way.
Were you using the same version number on each computer? If you use a newer version to compile, say JDK 6, and then try to run it on an older version, say JRE 1.4.2, there can be incompatibilities. This happens because the JDK defaults to compiling towards the newest version (API and bytecode format), but you can configure options to compile to any old version level you want (target 1.3 which will work on 1.3, 1.4, 5.0, and 6.0 if you are going for serious compatibility). This can be a very useful feature, but can lead to frustration in mixed environments if you don't understand it. Since you said that it can compile and run on both computers, that seems to indicate that this may be the source of your problem. My point, don't be so quick to blame bad implementation.
IBM has a free version of Java, I believe up to 5.0, for Linux on PPC. I have it running on an openSUSE PowerMac. I believe this is the site to look at. They don't say PPC, but you want the pSeries version (in both 32 and 64 bit varieties).
That depends on how the data was captured. To be able to interact with a mirror, the hologram would have to be constructed from data taken at nearly every point of observation in the space. That seems entirely impractical. What is more convincing is technology that can construct a 3D image from a single, or a few, images taken from a camera device that also uses sensor data to get distances. Such a single point of observation recreation would not allow interaction with a mirror. Since it is sci-fi and they had sentient cyborgs, let's just assume they did figure out how to capture a nearly infinite amount of points of observation and call it a day.
Wow, reading the posts so far seems to indicate that most people did not RTFA. This is not a simple trademark dispute. J&J and ARC had an agreement going back to the 1880's that seems to stipulate that J&J would have sole use of the red cross symbol for marketing commercial medical products (a business the ARC was not and did not intend to be in). The problem now is that the ARC is marketing products in stores, using the red cross symbol, that compete with J&J products. J&J sees this as a violation of the long-standing agreement between the two organizations even knowing that the profits feed back into the charity. At least this is my understanding of this situation.
That is the beauty of it all. The evolutionary process allows the advancement of a species. It is only logical that such a process would produce so many permutations, including the extremes of intelligence, agility, size, and strength. If you were going to create a planetary ecosystem including life, how would you do it? The most robust and elegant approach is clearly evolution and all of its structure(i.e. DNA). To create life that cannot grow and adapt would be a sure path to failure. Taking an evolutionary approach, if you had control, you would probably try your best to stack the chips in such a way to direct the outcome. Is it so hard to believe that evolution itself is a creation of God?
Did God come about through evolution as well?
Neither science or religion can ever attempt to figure out how the universe began. Christians will tell you that God has always been and scientists will tell you about a dense point, but that doesn't explain what created the material to make it dense in the first place. So bringing that up in a serious discussion about the relationship of religion and science is childish.
Did you even read that Wikipedia article you linked to? It lists three different names that RSS has had; Really Simple Syndication, RDF Site Summary, and Rich Site Summary. It all has to do with the wacky and incompatibility filled version history of RSS.
While there are extremists who believe in God, many of us are much more logical. Science and religion do not have to be opposing forces. A Christian can believe in both The Big Bang and evolution. Believing that God created humans through an evolutionary process does not detract from the glory of creation. Instead, it leads us to a better understanding of life and God. People who deny the validity of the scientific process on religious grounds are fooling themselves. The same goes for people who believe Science is somehow a substitute for religion. Personally, I think extremists from both sides are the only ones bickering about it.
Slashdot Mirror
Probably because it is permitted to link a proprietary binary blob to the Windows NT kernel. That is my guess.
Thanks for pointing that out. I had looked for something like this, but could not find it. I guess I should have tried posting to a forum. While it does handle the simple example that I gave, it does not seem to provide the general functionality needed in an easy way. What if you have a block of data that is more complex than simple integers? Even if you are handling stereo data, you would rather break it up on a frame boundary. Java just does not have direct memory manipulation that is needed for some high performance applications.
I think they were expecting better performance for two reasons; it is one of the newest drives on the market and it has a precedent setting 32 MB of on-drive cache. The fact that this drive can be outperformed by older, cheaper drives is crucial information in purchasing decisions. Their conclusion really says it all, that you should really only buy this drive if you absolutely need the extra capacity.
You are right in a way. Most people do not need pointer arithmetic, but it becomes very useful when you are working with external blocks of data. For example, I was writing some audio capture code in Java and with it you are passed byte arrays. In Java, you cannot simply treat this as a block of data because it is an object. It makes doing things like 16+ bit audio quite annoying. With pointer semantics I can simply treat the byte array like a short array and be done with it. There are many applications that deal with such external blocks of data that also need high performance, which requires the use of memory pointers. To completely replace C/C++, a language must allow this kind of direct memory manipulation.
Personally, I hate the "Big 4" record companies, but they are not the ones that I want to protect. Those organizations have the money and power to fight companies like YouTube with hordes of lawyers. They will fight to keep their profit margin even when their business model is becoming more obsolete every year. My concerns are to the copyright holders who don't have that kind of money and power. The ones who, whether by choice or not, are not represented by large corporations. It is simply not a reasonable expectation for an individual to police this kind of thing and fight the likes of Google/YouTube. I always look at it from the perspective of those who have the least power and resources and consider what is fair for them. The Internet should be a great platform for artists of any digital media to connect directly with their fans.
This discussion is about YouTube, not ISPs. YouTube's current business model as a content distributor is clearly different than that of a typical ISP that acts as a courier.
Do child porn rings really do that? That is a pretty smart idea. I can just see the headlines now, "Why do child pornography rings and Al-Qeada sleeper cells frequent used music shops!? Find out more at 10:00!"
YouTube is not a simple hosting service. YouTube is blindly serving content from unknown sources for ad-generated profit on pages it completely controls. As long as they do that, they should carry the accountability. If they instead move to a model that places ownership, profitability, and accountability to the uploaders, then they can stand on the same legal leg that an ISP stands on by being a middle-man service provider. Any takedown requests would be forwarded to the users uploading infringing content and they would only intervene when necessary.
You make some good points, but your last point seems to illustrate the problem. Assume that Comedy Central tells YouTube to stop serving any clips of the Daily Show longer than 30 seconds. YouTube can take down the current clips, but does not seem to have the infrastructure to make sure no more clips are successfully uploaded. This leads to Comedy Central having to regularly police YouTube to make sure such content gets taken down. The copyright holder should not have to constantly police YouTube when the request to block/take down the content has already been given. The problem is that YouTube does not seem to have any infrastructure in place to stop such repeat offenses. YouTube continues to make money and there does not seem to be a single penalty for doing so using illegal content. I would liken it to punishing a shop-lifter by simply making him return the merchandise when you know he is a repeat offender. He will keep doing it because most of the time he gets away and when he doesn't, there is no consequence. Like I have been trying to say, they are taking advantage of the system. Either a judge needs to make a ruling to set a legal precedent one way or the other for this kind of situation, or new laws need to be put in place to address this kind of behavior.
I did not say "takedown notice", I said "takedown". If they do admit to serving infringing material then they most likely also made money from copyright infringment. Last time I checked, you are not allowed to profit from your crimes. If they are allowed to keep the profits then a precedent is set to let them serve and make money off illegal content until somebody catches them. At which point they say, "oops, sorry", take it down, and some user just posts it again under a different title. That is definitely not an ethical way to run a business and it should not be legal.
I was not contradicting myself. I was trying to point out that YouTube is taking advantage of the law. Their position is simply unethical. (This example has been used a few times in this thread now) Look at a used CD store as an example. If they started buying burned CD-R copies of albums from customers and selling them, that would be completely unacceptable. Would it be fair for them to say, "What do you expect me to do? The customer said it was real."? No, instead they look at the CD-R and tell the customer to take a hike. YouTube seems to think they are above such due diligence and therefore I believe they are abusing the law.
Check another one of my replies for examples of "due diligence". My point is that YouTube is not performing due diligence. To do so would, and could, never weed out all violating material. If they had humans screening every clip they could weed out the ones that blatantly violate copyright such as the clips that are merely photo slideshows with some musicians newest song playing. But, like I said, they hide under the fact that their immense volume would make doing this too expensive to still turn a good profit. Not performing due diligence because it would rip away your profits should be an indication that your business model is not sound. A used CD store would not buy a CD that is burned onto a JVC CD-R, likewise YouTube should not accept blatantly copyright infringing video clips.
If you bother to read my whole comment, I stated that the current laws clearly were not written with this kind of situation in mind. In the cases you mentioned, there is always human interaction. If a customer tries to sell blatantly illegal copies of a CD, the shop clerk would see this and not accept the CD. That is performing due diligence. I don't think anybody would hold the store at fault if they accidentally purchased an exact copy that they believed to be valid. YouTube is not performing such due diligence because they took the human out of the loop and let an automated system handle the content. There are tons of videos on YouTube that are blatant violations that any screener could pick out. If they performed such screening, then copyright holders would not be up in arms because the problem would be much smaller. It is all about performing reasonable due diligence, but claiming that it is prohibitively expensive in time and money to do just because you have such high volume is not an excuse.
Google/YouTube hides under the fact that US copyright law puts the responsibility of reporting violation on the copyright holders. The problem is that a copyright holder should not be reasonably expected to scrape all of YouTube and all other similar sites every day/hour to look for violations just to have somebody else repost the video after it is taken down. I believe in fair use, but YouTube just spits in the face of copyright holders by throwing up their hands as if it is completely beyond their control. YouTube doesn't want to invest the time and money to perform their due diligence, but expects copyright holders to do it for them. It is clear that the laws on the books were written when publishing or broadcasting content was out of the reach of normal people. The law does not reflect any of the challenges faced by the current situation.
Perhaps a video takedown should also spur relinquishing all profits generated by the infringing video to the copyright holders. Perhaps then the copyright holders would see hunting violating clips on YouTube a worth-while use of time and YouTube would be more careful about what they allow to be posted. Of course, YouTube would probably give the excuse that it would just be too hard to track earnings in such an isolated way.
Were you using the same version number on each computer? If you use a newer version to compile, say JDK 6, and then try to run it on an older version, say JRE 1.4.2, there can be incompatibilities. This happens because the JDK defaults to compiling towards the newest version (API and bytecode format), but you can configure options to compile to any old version level you want (target 1.3 which will work on 1.3, 1.4, 5.0, and 6.0 if you are going for serious compatibility). This can be a very useful feature, but can lead to frustration in mixed environments if you don't understand it. Since you said that it can compile and run on both computers, that seems to indicate that this may be the source of your problem. My point, don't be so quick to blame bad implementation.
See my reply to the OP for a link. You can still get IBM Java versions for Linux x86 and PPC.
IBM has a free version of Java, I believe up to 5.0, for Linux on PPC. I have it running on an openSUSE PowerMac. I believe this is the site to look at. They don't say PPC, but you want the pSeries version (in both 32 and 64 bit varieties).
Here is the scary thing. I think most marketing professionals saw Minority Report and said, "That's the greatest idea ever!"
That depends on how the data was captured. To be able to interact with a mirror, the hologram would have to be constructed from data taken at nearly every point of observation in the space. That seems entirely impractical. What is more convincing is technology that can construct a 3D image from a single, or a few, images taken from a camera device that also uses sensor data to get distances. Such a single point of observation recreation would not allow interaction with a mirror. Since it is sci-fi and they had sentient cyborgs, let's just assume they did figure out how to capture a nearly infinite amount of points of observation and call it a day.
Wow, reading the posts so far seems to indicate that most people did not RTFA. This is not a simple trademark dispute. J&J and ARC had an agreement going back to the 1880's that seems to stipulate that J&J would have sole use of the red cross symbol for marketing commercial medical products (a business the ARC was not and did not intend to be in). The problem now is that the ARC is marketing products in stores, using the red cross symbol, that compete with J&J products. J&J sees this as a violation of the long-standing agreement between the two organizations even knowing that the profits feed back into the charity. At least this is my understanding of this situation.
Did God come about through evolution as well?
Neither science or religion can ever attempt to figure out how the universe began. Christians will tell you that God has always been and scientists will tell you about a dense point, but that doesn't explain what created the material to make it dense in the first place. So bringing that up in a serious discussion about the relationship of religion and science is childish.
Did you even read that Wikipedia article you linked to? It lists three different names that RSS has had; Really Simple Syndication, RDF Site Summary, and Rich Site Summary. It all has to do with the wacky and incompatibility filled version history of RSS.
While there are extremists who believe in God, many of us are much more logical. Science and religion do not have to be opposing forces. A Christian can believe in both The Big Bang and evolution. Believing that God created humans through an evolutionary process does not detract from the glory of creation. Instead, it leads us to a better understanding of life and God. People who deny the validity of the scientific process on religious grounds are fooling themselves. The same goes for people who believe Science is somehow a substitute for religion. Personally, I think extremists from both sides are the only ones bickering about it.