That being said, if they get a "lower standard" as it seems they want, then it will likely collapse the entire patent system by corporations rushing to invalidate patents that they find inconvenient or in possession of a direct competitor (actual or potential). A bonanza for lawyers and corporates, and the world gets to go to hell in a handbasket.
I'm not convinced the world wouldn't be better off without patents, especially if it didn't require a mess of lawyers to dissolve the system. For as much as patents encourage invention, they also take away competition, increase red tape, and reduce further invention because of overly broad patents.
From what I can tell, "clear and convincing" means you have a damn good case, with something like 90% certainty, and "preponderance of the evidence" means you have greater than 50% certainty -- meaning just weight both sides equally and choose which one you believe has the better case.
If those are the kind of instructions given to the jury, then I'd expect them to apply them, for the most part. I think if the Supreme Court changed the balance it would make a big difference.
No. Apparently you just aren't capable of understanding the notion of centralized repositories
Amazon is a big player in the market and has a vested interest to make sure the software users get is legit. Also, the standard open source repositories have alternatives, especially when it comes to proprietary media, and pretty much any Linux distribution allows you to install from wherever you want. Even with Amazon's app store, there's still the standard Google one. Choice exists, both in Linux and Android, just the opposite of being stuck.
And don't reply any more, unless you simply have to have the last (unread) word. You have no point, and I'm tired of wasting my time with you.
The point still stands. I don't want to be stuck to a single repository. Your basic complaint is that a marketplace of repositories is emerging, thus users being "stuck", which is 1984 Newspeak.
I never said it was illegal. In fact, I never said anything about jailbreaking at all.
However, the fact that you have to "jailbreak" your phone, which will void your warranty according to Apple and leaves you at risk for firmware updates, is hardly being given a choice by Apple. You're fighting Apple every step of the way instead of just doing what should be possible as a default.
Given your message is a commonly spouted Apple position, my mistake was reasonable. Anyways, the larger point still stands. Choice = stuck is 1984 Newspeak.
Trolling is such a misused word. Behind the angry and hateful persona, his point is perfectly valid. The idea that you are "stuck" because you have choices... well, that's quite the Apple spin. Step out of the Reality Distortion Field for a while.
The federal gov't may well be distributing money (unconstitutionally) to "even things out" but that doesn't give Californians the right to tell Tennesseans how to run their state.
As long as they're accepting federal money, the whole public has a vested interest. If the states don't like it, they can stop accepting the money. But even so, the Supreme Court has been applying the Bill of Rights to state or local governments. Teaching religion in science class at a public school violates the First Amendment.
If you look at the US congress you see the US citizenry. Weak, corrupt, dishonest, self centered, exactly like the people they represent. Don't leave out ignorant and greedy either.
That's the way people are in general. If not, tell me which enlightened country to move to.
I'm not sure what side you're arguing on any more. As you've clearly demonstrated, the whole "voluntary" thing is bullshit. SSN has already become a de-facto national ID.
My own senses tell me there is a God or else I would have just killed myself many years ago.
Alternatively, you chose to believe in a God to avoid killing yourself. A Buddhist might believe in enlightenment and some kind of eternal lifeforce. Neither point of view is based on hard evidence. I'm an atheist and haven't killed myself, even if I think life is ultimately pointless.
Do you really think someone that gets an 8 year theology degree completely lacks any critical thinking?
The sad part is when desire to believe a certain viewpoint overrides critical thinking.
If it weren't for atheists we wouldn't need any critical thinking any way.
I can't even imagine what this is supposed to mean.
And anyway, do I really need critical thinking to read a blueprint?
Critical thinking helps you reject false authority and instead debate decisions on merit. Science and critical thinking put the religious authorities in their place. Those who seek to corrupt science do so to regain their lost position.
Furthermore seeing as how "critical thinking" is more philosophical than anything, how can it truly be taught? It is based completely on one's personal opinion.
Laughable. It's evidence and reason based. We didn't come this far in our science and technology by just having opinions.
God calls us to be obedient and serve. Not to lay around and do what ever we feel like until judgment comes.
But in the end, it came down to personal choice. To say I had no choice to start and no choice to stop is the problem. Somebody who gets leukemia never had a choice.
We're definitely not going to agree on basic principles. I hate the "blame the programmer" school of thought when the language makes it easy to make mistakes humans are just good at making. This is why we have type systems.
I don't have a firm opinion on multiple inheritance, except to say that inheritance in general is fragile, and there are probably better ways to do it. I really have to study what Go does in this area. Operator overloading -- I can live without it. It's definitely prone to abuse, and I don't think the benefit is so great.
Re-writing standard classes over and over again? Waste of time and more code to maintain.
What is the big deal with asking for more flexibility in the language, and more ways to express oneself in code?
You can trace this argument all the back to the original goto debates. It's the same issues. Flexibility vs error and abuse prone.
True enough, though malloc/free are not deterministic when it comes to their performance, which for some applications is a killer. Also, for C++ you only talked about object destructors getting called "when the stack frame is popped as your object goes out of scope". That only works for stack-allocated objects.
And if you really want to talk about "Well-behaved, provable programs need to be deterministic," then C++ is an abject failure in this regard because of memory corruption when a programmer makes a mistake (as they often do), much of which has to do with manual memory allocation and de-allocation.
They also own the trademark for Java (not gonna even bother supplying a reference for that one).
They also own patents, and potentially copyright, that might be violated in an implementation of a JVM. Google tried to get around the trademark issue but got caught up in patents and copyrights. I wish the Oracle case against Google would get resolved soon, just to see where things stand. I suspect Google will end up settling and paying a hefty license fee to Oracle, which would still suck for other JVM implementations.
What the fuck is "enterprise code"? I've heard this phrase used in so much marketing, but what the hell is it supposed to mean?
It's code that has to run inside large businesses that usually revolves around workflows that pull and push crap out of and into a database. Correctness is generally valued over efficiency, and usually more hardware will be thrown at a problem than writing it in C or C++.
Horribly bloated code written by mouth breathers who can't grasp any other language than one which doesn't hold their hand the entire way through.
Java gets the job done with reasonable performance, strong type checking, and a reasonably simple language. C++ used to be the "enterprise" language. It lost to Java because it's an insane language to work in, both in complexity and memory corruption, and the performance you could squeeze out of it wasn't worth it.
Oh and you usually have to throw in a couple of frameworks and then add additional frameworks on top of other frameworks to manage your other frameworks in the process of designing "enterprise" software.
That's just technology. You find yourself doing the same thing over and over again so you write a framework, but then that drives new technology, and the cycle continues.
Slashdot Mirror
That being said, if they get a "lower standard" as it seems they want, then it will likely collapse the entire patent system by corporations rushing to invalidate patents that they find inconvenient or in possession of a direct competitor (actual or potential). A bonanza for lawyers and corporates, and the world gets to go to hell in a handbasket.
I'm not convinced the world wouldn't be better off without patents, especially if it didn't require a mess of lawyers to dissolve the system. For as much as patents encourage invention, they also take away competition, increase red tape, and reduce further invention because of overly broad patents.
From what I can tell, "clear and convincing" means you have a damn good case, with something like 90% certainty, and "preponderance of the evidence" means you have greater than 50% certainty -- meaning just weight both sides equally and choose which one you believe has the better case.
If those are the kind of instructions given to the jury, then I'd expect them to apply them, for the most part. I think if the Supreme Court changed the balance it would make a big difference.
I guess you never saw Pulp Fiction, which is where the name was inspired from. Too lazy too Google the scene, but you can find it on YouTube.
No. Apparently you just aren't capable of understanding the notion of centralized repositories
Amazon is a big player in the market and has a vested interest to make sure the software users get is legit. Also, the standard open source repositories have alternatives, especially when it comes to proprietary media, and pretty much any Linux distribution allows you to install from wherever you want. Even with Amazon's app store, there's still the standard Google one. Choice exists, both in Linux and Android, just the opposite of being stuck.
And don't reply any more, unless you simply have to have the last (unread) word. You have no point, and I'm tired of wasting my time with you.
Running away, are you?
Thanks for your empty response. Keep on sticking fingers in your ears and yelling "la la la, I can't hear you".
The point still stands. I don't want to be stuck to a single repository. Your basic complaint is that a marketplace of repositories is emerging, thus users being "stuck", which is 1984 Newspeak.
I never said it was illegal. In fact, I never said anything about jailbreaking at all.
However, the fact that you have to "jailbreak" your phone, which will void your warranty according to Apple and leaves you at risk for firmware updates, is hardly being given a choice by Apple. You're fighting Apple every step of the way instead of just doing what should be possible as a default.
Given your message is a commonly spouted Apple position, my mistake was reasonable. Anyways, the larger point still stands. Choice = stuck is 1984 Newspeak.
Trolling is such a misused word. Behind the angry and hateful persona, his point is perfectly valid. The idea that you are "stuck" because you have choices... well, that's quite the Apple spin. Step out of the Reality Distortion Field for a while.
The federal gov't may well be distributing money (unconstitutionally) to "even things out" but that doesn't give Californians the right to tell Tennesseans how to run their state.
As long as they're accepting federal money, the whole public has a vested interest. If the states don't like it, they can stop accepting the money. But even so, the Supreme Court has been applying the Bill of Rights to state or local governments. Teaching religion in science class at a public school violates the First Amendment.
If you look at the US congress you see the US citizenry. Weak, corrupt, dishonest, self centered, exactly like the people they represent. Don't leave out ignorant and greedy either.
That's the way people are in general. If not, tell me which enlightened country to move to.
I'm not sure what side you're arguing on any more. As you've clearly demonstrated, the whole "voluntary" thing is bullshit. SSN has already become a de-facto national ID.
How many kids do you have, and how many school districts are they attending, exactly?
It's a moot question. Everybody is taxed to pay for schools, kids or not. What's given in a public education is the concern of all the public.
My own senses tell me there is a God or else I would have just killed myself many years ago.
Alternatively, you chose to believe in a God to avoid killing yourself. A Buddhist might believe in enlightenment and some kind of eternal lifeforce. Neither point of view is based on hard evidence. I'm an atheist and haven't killed myself, even if I think life is ultimately pointless.
Do you really think someone that gets an 8 year theology degree completely lacks any critical thinking?
The sad part is when desire to believe a certain viewpoint overrides critical thinking.
If it weren't for atheists we wouldn't need any critical thinking any way.
I can't even imagine what this is supposed to mean.
And anyway, do I really need critical thinking to read a blueprint?
Critical thinking helps you reject false authority and instead debate decisions on merit. Science and critical thinking put the religious authorities in their place. Those who seek to corrupt science do so to regain their lost position.
Furthermore seeing as how "critical thinking" is more philosophical than anything, how can it truly be taught? It is based completely on one's personal opinion.
Laughable. It's evidence and reason based. We didn't come this far in our science and technology by just having opinions.
God calls us to be obedient and serve. Not to lay around and do what ever we feel like until judgment comes.
So here's the mythological authority. Stuff it.
But in the end, it came down to personal choice. To say I had no choice to start and no choice to stop is the problem. Somebody who gets leukemia never had a choice.
We're definitely not going to agree on basic principles. I hate the "blame the programmer" school of thought when the language makes it easy to make mistakes humans are just good at making. This is why we have type systems.
I don't have a firm opinion on multiple inheritance, except to say that inheritance in general is fragile, and there are probably better ways to do it. I really have to study what Go does in this area. Operator overloading -- I can live without it. It's definitely prone to abuse, and I don't think the benefit is so great.
Re-writing standard classes over and over again? Waste of time and more code to maintain.
What is the big deal with asking for more flexibility in the language, and more ways to express oneself in code?
You can trace this argument all the back to the original goto debates. It's the same issues. Flexibility vs error and abuse prone.
True enough, though malloc/free are not deterministic when it comes to their performance, which for some applications is a killer. Also, for C++ you only talked about object destructors getting called "when the stack frame is popped as your object goes out of scope". That only works for stack-allocated objects.
And if you really want to talk about "Well-behaved, provable programs need to be deterministic," then C++ is an abject failure in this regard because of memory corruption when a programmer makes a mistake (as they often do), much of which has to do with manual memory allocation and de-allocation.
The summary is just plagiarized from the article. I hope the guy who wrote that article at least got paid for his puffery.
I admire your cynicism.
You know it's a telescope and not a satellite.
Those two aren't mutually exclusive.
Oracle doesn't own the JVM - they own their reference implementation.
They own the trademark for JVM:
http://www.trademarkia.com/jvm-75918281.html
They also own the trademark for Java (not gonna even bother supplying a reference for that one).
They also own patents, and potentially copyright, that might be violated in an implementation of a JVM. Google tried to get around the trademark issue but got caught up in patents and copyrights. I wish the Oracle case against Google would get resolved soon, just to see where things stand. I suspect Google will end up settling and paying a hefty license fee to Oracle, which would still suck for other JVM implementations.
Well-behaved, provable programs need to be deterministic.
malloc() and free() are not deterministic.
Really? With my online banking, I could send the money to anybody via a wire transfer. Is this not available via your online bank?
What the fuck is "enterprise code"? I've heard this phrase used in so much marketing, but what the hell is it supposed to mean?
It's code that has to run inside large businesses that usually revolves around workflows that pull and push crap out of and into a database. Correctness is generally valued over efficiency, and usually more hardware will be thrown at a problem than writing it in C or C++.
Horribly bloated code written by mouth breathers who can't grasp any other language than one which doesn't hold their hand the entire way through.
Java gets the job done with reasonable performance, strong type checking, and a reasonably simple language. C++ used to be the "enterprise" language. It lost to Java because it's an insane language to work in, both in complexity and memory corruption, and the performance you could squeeze out of it wasn't worth it.
Oh and you usually have to throw in a couple of frameworks and then add additional frameworks on top of other frameworks to manage your other frameworks in the process of designing "enterprise" software.
That's just technology. You find yourself doing the same thing over and over again so you write a framework, but then that drives new technology, and the cycle continues.
I realize that is an inherent feature of the job (as opposed to a personal failing on their part), at least in our current/modern democratic society.
The fundamental nature of politics isn't a modern invention. Look at politics throughout history. It's all pretty ugly stuff.