Are you claiming that Google is selling browser history data to the health care industry?
How much is being paid?
Exactly who is buying.
I suspect that this is not the case since this would fundamentally destroy their business and they are or at least should be sensible enough to recognize this.
Rather, I suspect, but can not as yet prove, that it is the health care industry mining data from social networking sites and on-line marketers that are the primary culprits in this. Exactly, how much is being paid to and by who needs to be the subject of a much wider debate. Otherwise, the entire concept of American democracy is dead.
The entire Facebook and social networking business model is about penning users into a coral and preying upon their personal information for its marketing potential. Anyone who buys into the technology must is basically signing on to be fleeced as companies like Facebook, Myspace, etc. fleece them for what they are worth.
Facebook is the internet on training wheels, for those who need the assist.
Why not? Republicans are planning to shut down the entire government anyway. Why should the internet be immune? If the NSA is forced to turn out the lights, you can expect everyone else's will dim too.
You must be joking. No one can be that much of a fool can they? You obviously don't spend much time trying to figure out who really pays these guys the big bucks.
LOL. The constitution is just what Alito, Thomas, Kennedy, Alito and Roberts say it is, which is whatever the corporations want to hear. You obviously don't spend much time on the D.C. cocktail circuit do you?
You are living in fantasy land my friend. This is 2010. The concept of justice and fairness have been removed from the system in favor of political expediency. If you have the cash, you get your way. Its just that simple. Wispy minded idealists no longer have a place in the new American dream. The courts are not about justice, just maintaining the corporate status quo and that is quid pro quo for those who don't understand Latin.
Its not at all clear that what is being denied here is political speech, but rather the willful destruction of what a community of users has built. Free speech doesn't mean you are entitled to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Likewise, it can not be used as an excuse for vandalism. There are limits to the exercise of free speech. Free speech is not absolute. Failing to recognize this will only ensure the erosion of free speech as people try desperately to protect themselves from the consequences.
To take your perspective to its logical extreme, as has been done in the Citizens United SCOTUS ruling, the well-connected and well-funded should be permitted to lie about everything and anything in as deceptive a manner as possible or as necessary so as to totally pervert and manipulate the very concept of democracy. It may be legal, although certainly not just, and in no way leads to anything but a corruption of the entire system. Speech becomes totally without purpose or usefulness, if all speech becomes so deceptive and anonymous that it looses context and meaning or some measure of common trust between those speaking and those listening.
If you are an anarchist, then you should embrace anonymous and deceptive speech 24/7. If not, then you need to ask yourself, just where do you draw the line. Personally, as an advocate of the benefits civilization, I would rule out vandalism, bomb threats, and flying airplanes into buildings as justified expressions of free speech anonymous or not.
If someone is using Verizon services to vandalize a website then Verizon, if it does not act to the contrary, is aiding and abetting and is subject to damages that Wikipedia may wish to seek.
Although Wikipedia is designed to make it easy for all to edit, there are rules that they must obviously enforce to keep the site valuable and their efforts from being wasted. Since Verizon customers ultimately may ultimately get to pay for the damages in higher fees for service, its pool of non-vandals should care if they want to keep their costs low.
As a user of Wikipedia, I make note of Verizon's unwillingness to cooperate and will be steering clear from doing business with Verizon until this is cleared up. If the well-intentioned and civic minded don't make an effort to stand up to those who would destroy, then they will ultimately loose the benefit of civilization. The choice is up to each of to make.
Yes this has been conventional wisdom. However, it looks as if Google may well use it to beat Oracle over the head with it, since it forces anyone using "open source" Java to pay Oracle, when they don't actually own the right to force developers to pay them for what is essentially open source software. That is an illegal extension of the technology that the patents cover, which only strictly pertain to just how similar to the JVM any VM has to be and be permitted to call itself Java. Google makes no pretense that its VM is a JVM, only that it can use the open source Java language, among others, to produce VM Dalvik bytecode. It seems that Google lawyers had done their homework well before Oracle bought Sun and that Larry got some bad legal advice as to the strength and scope of Sun's patents.
Yes, but one that a judge could love. Read: Oracle can not receive patent protection for technology that it does not own. The onus legally will be on Oracle to prove that the Dalvik VM is a copy of the Java JVM. That is not going to be easy to do given that they are bytecode incompatible and that simply translating Java into Dalvik bytecode is not a technology that Oracle owns.
I see it is going to be very difficult for Oracle to prove that its JVM can generate bytecode that is able to run Dalvik bytecode.
Also, from a PR perspective being forced to sue its customers really creates a serious problem for Oracle as a means of keeping Java running on all platforms. Who will want to run it, if they can be sued merely for using it to develop an application? Looks to me that Oracle lawyers may have had an easier time getting greedy Larry to sign off on the idea than they will a judge.
can Oracle now win this lawsuit without simultaneously destroying Java as a product that any developer may choose to use, since it creates the possibility for Oracle to extend the scope of their patents just by the application of the language itself on the part of the developer?
Larry must be fuming at the lawyers who convinced him this was a great strategy to take. Now he may have put his entire company in jeopardy by proceeding with this lawsuit.
So what happens when Apache uses the GLPv2 version of the Java LANGUAGE and builds its self a VM (not a JVM) called Lava that is attractive to Open Source Developers outside the JCP? Even IBM could get leverage on Oracle if they decided to cooperate. Oracle may own the JVM but it doesn't own the VM concept, so others have a lot of flexibility. At that point, it just requires the larger community to pile on and decide they want to use it. Java becomes history covered by Hot Lava.
Every one keeps saying Oracle is going to take Google down, but if Google can show it is only using VM techniques rather than JVM techniques, I can't see how they are not in the clear. There is just way to much prior art (UCSD-Pascal 1970's vintage).
As an avid fan of David's shows on conservations, perhaps instead we can deport Glen Beck to insure that citizens of the UK really are brain dead and thus unable to challenge our technological superiority.
No perhaps they won't like it, but at least the extra cost might offset the additional expenses associated with police investigations of auto accidents caused by drivers using such devices while they are behind the wheel.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you claiming that Google is selling browser history data to the health care industry?
How much is being paid?
Exactly who is buying.
I suspect that this is not the case since this would fundamentally destroy their business and they are or at least should be sensible enough to recognize this.
Rather, I suspect, but can not as yet prove, that it is the health care industry mining data from social networking sites and on-line marketers that are the primary culprits in this. Exactly, how much is being paid to and by who needs to be the subject of a much wider debate. Otherwise, the entire concept of American democracy is dead.
The entire Facebook and social networking business model is about penning users into a coral and preying upon their personal information for its marketing potential. Anyone who buys into the technology must is basically signing on to be fleeced as companies like Facebook, Myspace, etc. fleece them for what they are worth.
Facebook is the internet on training wheels, for those who need the assist.
Why not? Republicans are planning to shut down the entire government anyway. Why should the internet be immune? If the NSA is forced to turn out the lights, you can expect everyone else's will dim too.
Corporations have you and everyone else by the balls. Just get used to it or someone's lawyer will be soon paying you a visit.
If you can get a judge for a few tricks and some cocaine, how hard would it be to buy one for a million bucks? Its becoming common place.
You are obviously still living in yesterday.
You must be joking. No one can be that much of a fool can they? You obviously don't spend much time trying to figure out who really pays these guys the big bucks.
LOL. The constitution is just what Alito, Thomas, Kennedy, Alito and Roberts say it is, which is whatever the corporations want to hear. You obviously don't spend much time on the D.C. cocktail circuit do you?
You are living in fantasy land my friend. This is 2010. The concept of justice and fairness have been removed from the system in favor of political expediency. If you have the cash, you get your way. Its just that simple. Wispy minded idealists no longer have a place in the new American dream. The courts are not about justice, just maintaining the corporate status quo and that is quid pro quo for those who don't understand Latin.
and since when did that stop the republicans and other corporatists?
but China seems to be ahead of us in this technology as well.
You obviously don't seem to understand how the system works. If you don't own your own politicians you have no say. Its as simple as that.
Its not at all clear that what is being denied here is political speech, but rather the willful destruction of what a community of users has built. Free speech doesn't mean you are entitled to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Likewise, it can not be used as an excuse for vandalism. There are limits to the exercise of free speech. Free speech is not absolute. Failing to recognize this will only ensure the erosion of free speech as people try desperately to protect themselves from the consequences.
To take your perspective to its logical extreme, as has been done in the Citizens United SCOTUS ruling, the well-connected and well-funded should be permitted to lie about everything and anything in as deceptive a manner as possible or as necessary so as to totally pervert and manipulate the very concept of democracy. It may be legal, although certainly not just, and in no way leads to anything but a corruption of the entire system. Speech becomes totally without purpose or usefulness, if all speech becomes so deceptive and anonymous that it looses context and meaning or some measure of common trust between those speaking and those listening.
If you are an anarchist, then you should embrace anonymous and deceptive speech 24/7. If not, then you need to ask yourself, just where do you draw the line. Personally, as an advocate of the benefits civilization, I would rule out vandalism, bomb threats, and flying airplanes into buildings as justified expressions of free speech anonymous or not.
If someone is using Verizon services to vandalize a website then Verizon, if it does not act to the contrary, is aiding and abetting and is subject to damages that Wikipedia may wish to seek.
Although Wikipedia is designed to make it easy for all to edit, there are rules that they must obviously enforce to keep the site valuable and their efforts from being wasted. Since Verizon customers ultimately may ultimately get to pay for the damages in higher fees for service, its pool of non-vandals should care if they want to keep their costs low.
As a user of Wikipedia, I make note of Verizon's unwillingness to cooperate and will be steering clear from doing business with Verizon until this is cleared up. If the well-intentioned and civic minded don't make an effort to stand up to those who would destroy, then they will ultimately loose the benefit of civilization. The choice is up to each of to make.
everyone seems eager to smear themselves in s__t as under all that BS is a pot of gold. Fro that either Larry will be glad to paint themselves brown.
What makes you think there will be a jury rather than just a judge?
Yes this has been conventional wisdom. However, it looks as if Google may well use it to beat Oracle over the head with it, since it forces anyone using "open source" Java to pay Oracle, when they don't actually own the right to force developers to pay them for what is essentially open source software. That is an illegal extension of the technology that the patents cover, which only strictly pertain to just how similar to the JVM any VM has to be and be permitted to call itself Java. Google makes no pretense that its VM is a JVM, only that it can use the open source Java language, among others, to produce VM Dalvik bytecode. It seems that Google lawyers had done their homework well before Oracle bought Sun and that Larry got some bad legal advice as to the strength and scope of Sun's patents.
Yes, but one that a judge could love. Read: Oracle can not receive patent protection for technology that it does not own. The onus legally will be on Oracle to prove that the Dalvik VM is a copy of the Java JVM. That is not going to be easy to do given that they are bytecode incompatible and that simply translating Java into Dalvik bytecode is not a technology that Oracle owns.
I see it is going to be very difficult for Oracle to prove that its JVM can generate bytecode that is able to run Dalvik bytecode.
Also, from a PR perspective being forced to sue its customers really creates a serious problem for Oracle as a means of keeping Java running on all platforms. Who will want to run it, if they can be sued merely for using it to develop an application? Looks to me that Oracle lawyers may have had an easier time getting greedy Larry to sign off on the idea than they will a judge.
but who will be eager to buy a license to a product that Oracle can sue you if you use it?
If this policy begins to bleed into its Java - database offerings, it could sink Oracle as a company within a few years time.
Larry must be freaking out over the lousy legal advise given to him by a few lawyers eager to find a new gravy train.
can Oracle now win this lawsuit without simultaneously destroying Java as a product that any developer may choose to use, since it creates the possibility for Oracle to extend the scope of their patents just by the application of the language itself on the part of the developer?
Larry must be fuming at the lawyers who convinced him this was a great strategy to take. Now he may have put his entire company in jeopardy by proceeding with this lawsuit.
Republicans are working furiously to gut this law as we speak.
It will die on a Friday night sometime just before Christmas.
What about Chrome? Why are its users still without a defense? Is this company policy?
I may have to switch back to Firefox. I'm getting crushed by spam using Chrome.
So what happens when Apache uses the GLPv2 version of the Java LANGUAGE and builds its self a VM (not a JVM) called Lava that is attractive to Open Source Developers outside the JCP? Even IBM could get leverage on Oracle if they decided to cooperate. Oracle may own the JVM but it doesn't own the VM concept, so others have a lot of flexibility. At that point, it just requires the larger community to pile on and decide they want to use it. Java becomes history covered by Hot Lava.
Every one keeps saying Oracle is going to take Google down, but if Google can show it is only using VM techniques rather than JVM techniques, I can't see how they are not in the clear. There is just way to much prior art (UCSD-Pascal 1970's vintage).
As an avid fan of David's shows on conservations, perhaps instead we can deport Glen Beck to insure that citizens of the UK really are brain dead and thus unable to challenge our technological superiority.
No perhaps they won't like it, but at least the extra cost might offset the additional expenses associated with police investigations of auto accidents caused by drivers using such devices while they are behind the wheel.