Yeah, whatever, keep arguing semantics as if we wouldn't have another OS mono-culture if it weren't for Android.
I never said that. Whether or not some other system would have come along is impossible to know at this point. I would like to think that someone would have put together a system that didn't suck. Blackberry might have done it. Maybe Microsoft, but I admit that would have been pretty unlikely. Could have been Maemo, if a bunch of the manufacturers were looking for something to use and they didn't have Android available.
I think you and I just have a different standard for what is really considered a monopoly in a computing market. Apple only dominated a small (but rapidly growing) market for a few years at most. Compare that to Microsoft, which had a monopoly (and arguably still does) for nearly 20 years.
One, you said "early 2000s". Assuming you meant the decade and not the century or millennium, you were off by 4-5 years.
My main point was that the "monopoly" was in a very small smartphone market. For the first couple years, most cell phones were not smartphones. By the time smartphones became the norm, Android was reasonably well established.
...all while breaking down the OS monopoly that was iOS as the only viable smartphone of the early 2000s...
The first iPhone was released in 2007, and the first Android phone was released a little over a year later. Apple only had a monopoly for a couple years in a fairly small smartphone market.
I had a similar thought: did Google decide to use Java as the programming language for Android, or did AOSP make that decision before Google was involved?
The lawyer is confusing that with trademark law, and probably should be disbarred for being either completely obtuse and ignorant of the law she claims to know, or disbarred for being a majorly disingenuous douchebag and outright lying.
Somebody is confused, but I don't think it's that lawyer.
So a billion Android devices is fair use, but add in 500k Chromebooks, and oh no, it's a different matter all together?
Oracle's argument is that a billion devices in a market that Oracle isn't in may be fair use, but 500k devices in a market that Oracle is in makes it a different matter. It will be up to a judge and/or jury to decide.
I guess if you want to play meaningless semantics games, sure. You can also say that you automatically accept the license when you make the copy, and then you can still go ahead and do things that violate the license. It doesn't matter how you want to state what you did, you would be liable for copyright infringement either way.
In a way, though, that's sort of an impossible statement. The reason that you can run the software without accepting the license is because the license explicitly says that you can. So you're accepting the license when you run the program, but most of the license doesn't apply to you. Courts have ruled that copying the program from disk to RAM in order to execute it counts as making a copy as far as copyright law is concerned (not to say that I agree with the ruling, but that's where they stand right now). So when the GPL says you don't have to accept the license in order to run the software, the effective statement is really that none of the other terms of the license apply to you if you are only running the software.
Distribute GPL software? Must accept the license (otherwise one goes against the copyright) and follow the instructions.
I've emphasized the part of your post that is correct, since you're not quite correct in the rest of your post. As soon as you make a copy of the source code, you have accepted the terms of the copyright license, even if you don't distribute anything.
The terms of the GPL allow you to do pretty much whatever you want until you distribute the software, at which point you are required to make the source code available to anyone you give the software to. That's specific to the GPL, though; it is not an aspect of copyrights in general.
If you have 42U racks that take up 1 m^2 each (they're about 2x4') and use 4U servers with 36 disk bays (which is the last one I got), you get 360 hard disks per m^2. If you use 8 TB disks, you'd get about 2.8 PB per m^2.
I think capacity per disk is starting to become a bit of a factor, too. For some people (read: large companies), It might be worth spending double the price per TB of storage if it also means you need half as many servers to hold the disks. The savings in hardware costs, rack space, and electricity will make up for some of the additional cost for the hard drives.
I've made the decision a couple times to buy 8 TB hard drives, even if they weren't the best price per TB, because it allows for the highest possible total storage before we would have to spend more on another chassis.
O'Hare had mental issues and it seemed very tactless of Doyle to publicly make fun of him like he did.
I don't know how much the rest of the cast knew about O'Hare's psychological diseases. JMS had promised O'Hare to not say anything about it until after O'Hare had passed. Doyle may have said things without knowing how serious O'Hare's problems were.
Some more about the origins of technomages, the years following the drakh plauge - and did someone finally take care of the drakh considering that Vir didn't seem to be burdened by them?
A lot of that is covered in The Passing of the Technomages trilogy of books, which are really good. The other two trilogies, one about Centauri Prime and the other about the Psi Corps, are also really good.
The only way to end the threat of Islamic takeover of the world, next year or in 20 centuries, is to annihilate Islam root and branch. Turning Iran into a radioactive wasteland would be a good start.
Congratulations, you've just become an ISIS propaganda poster.
If a restaurant offered "unlimited bread sticks" without the usual stipulation that it's just for people who bought food, then it's not abuse at all to bring 30 of your friends in to chow down so long as it's allowed by the terms the restaurant set. It's being a jackass, yes, but not an abuse.
Storage is about $0.25 a gig (Assuming redundant drives) So that 75TB is about $18,000 worth of space for your free service.
You think Microsoft is paying $125 each for a bunch of 1 TB hard drives? 8 TB hard drives sell for $500-600, and I'm sure Microsoft is paying less than that when they buy hundreds of them at a time. Even if they're doing full mirroring instead of something like RAID-6, you're off by a factor of 2.
Slashdot Mirror
Phone in the left pocket, keys & wallet in the right.
Exact opposite here. Are you left-handed? If so, that would explain it (I'm right-handed).
If you do real work or a college student you are going to be emailed office documents.
I'm not sure I see the connection between doing a college student and being emailed office documents.
You don't have any clue about how confidential information is handled in litigation, do you?
I don't understand what the North American Marlon Brando Look-Alikes have to do with this...
Yeah, whatever, keep arguing semantics as if we wouldn't have another OS mono-culture if it weren't for Android.
I never said that. Whether or not some other system would have come along is impossible to know at this point. I would like to think that someone would have put together a system that didn't suck. Blackberry might have done it. Maybe Microsoft, but I admit that would have been pretty unlikely. Could have been Maemo, if a bunch of the manufacturers were looking for something to use and they didn't have Android available.
I think you and I just have a different standard for what is really considered a monopoly in a computing market. Apple only dominated a small (but rapidly growing) market for a few years at most. Compare that to Microsoft, which had a monopoly (and arguably still does) for nearly 20 years.
One, you said "early 2000s". Assuming you meant the decade and not the century or millennium, you were off by 4-5 years.
My main point was that the "monopoly" was in a very small smartphone market. For the first couple years, most cell phones were not smartphones. By the time smartphones became the norm, Android was reasonably well established.
...all while breaking down the OS monopoly that was iOS as the only viable smartphone of the early 2000s...
The first iPhone was released in 2007, and the first Android phone was released a little over a year later. Apple only had a monopoly for a couple years in a fairly small smartphone market.
I had a similar thought: did Google decide to use Java as the programming language for Android, or did AOSP make that decision before Google was involved?
Fair use is fair use. It has nothing to do with competing.
This page and this page seem to disagree.
The lawyer is confusing that with trademark law, and probably should be disbarred for being either completely obtuse and ignorant of the law she claims to know, or disbarred for being a majorly disingenuous douchebag and outright lying.
Somebody is confused, but I don't think it's that lawyer.
So a billion Android devices is fair use, but add in 500k Chromebooks, and oh no, it's a different matter all together?
Oracle's argument is that a billion devices in a market that Oracle isn't in may be fair use, but 500k devices in a market that Oracle is in makes it a different matter. It will be up to a judge and/or jury to decide.
I guess if you want to play meaningless semantics games, sure. You can also say that you automatically accept the license when you make the copy, and then you can still go ahead and do things that violate the license. It doesn't matter how you want to state what you did, you would be liable for copyright infringement either way.
In a way, though, that's sort of an impossible statement. The reason that you can run the software without accepting the license is because the license explicitly says that you can. So you're accepting the license when you run the program, but most of the license doesn't apply to you. Courts have ruled that copying the program from disk to RAM in order to execute it counts as making a copy as far as copyright law is concerned (not to say that I agree with the ruling, but that's where they stand right now). So when the GPL says you don't have to accept the license in order to run the software, the effective statement is really that none of the other terms of the license apply to you if you are only running the software.
No it isn't! One have to accept the license to copy the software but as long as you don't distribute it you don't have to accept anything..
Use* GPL licensed software? Compile GPL licensed source code?
Allowed without accepting the license.
Distribute GPL software? Must accept the license (otherwise one goes against the copyright) and follow the instructions.
I've emphasized the part of your post that is correct, since you're not quite correct in the rest of your post. As soon as you make a copy of the source code, you have accepted the terms of the copyright license, even if you don't distribute anything.
The terms of the GPL allow you to do pretty much whatever you want until you distribute the software, at which point you are required to make the source code available to anyone you give the software to. That's specific to the GPL, though; it is not an aspect of copyrights in general.
I can do some very approximate math for you.
If you have 42U racks that take up 1 m^2 each (they're about 2x4') and use 4U servers with 36 disk bays (which is the last one I got), you get 360 hard disks per m^2. If you use 8 TB disks, you'd get about 2.8 PB per m^2.
Oh great, now you have a 60TB drive that will fail taking everything with it and because of the size making backups very costly to boot.
Why does it cost more to backup 60 TB of data from a single SSD than it does to backup 60 TB of data from a dozen HDDs?
I think capacity per disk is starting to become a bit of a factor, too. For some people (read: large companies), It might be worth spending double the price per TB of storage if it also means you need half as many servers to hold the disks. The savings in hardware costs, rack space, and electricity will make up for some of the additional cost for the hard drives.
I've made the decision a couple times to buy 8 TB hard drives, even if they weren't the best price per TB, because it allows for the highest possible total storage before we would have to spend more on another chassis.
O'Hare had mental issues and it seemed very tactless of Doyle to publicly make fun of him like he did.
I don't know how much the rest of the cast knew about O'Hare's psychological diseases. JMS had promised O'Hare to not say anything about it until after O'Hare had passed. Doyle may have said things without knowing how serious O'Hare's problems were.
Some more about the origins of technomages, the years following the drakh plauge - and did someone finally take care of the drakh considering that Vir didn't seem to be burdened by them?
A lot of that is covered in The Passing of the Technomages trilogy of books, which are really good. The other two trilogies, one about Centauri Prime and the other about the Psi Corps, are also really good.
... is "Devil worshipping porn" really a thing?
Rule 34 says yes.
...while pornography that involves any kind of homogayness, that being sodomy or Devil worshipping...
WTF???
What did my car cost 40 years ago in constant dollars ?
Unless you're driving a really shitty 30-year-old car, nothing close to as advanced as your car existed 40 years ago.
The only way to end the threat of Islamic takeover of the world, next year or in 20 centuries, is to annihilate Islam root and branch. Turning Iran into a radioactive wasteland would be a good start.
Congratulations, you've just become an ISIS propaganda poster.
If a restaurant offered "unlimited bread sticks" without the usual stipulation that it's just for people who bought food, then it's not abuse at all to bring 30 of your friends in to chow down so long as it's allowed by the terms the restaurant set. It's being a jackass, yes, but not an abuse.
How is "being a jackass" different from "abuse"?
Storage is about $0.25 a gig (Assuming redundant drives) So that 75TB is about $18,000 worth of space for your free service.
You think Microsoft is paying $125 each for a bunch of 1 TB hard drives? 8 TB hard drives sell for $500-600, and I'm sure Microsoft is paying less than that when they buy hundreds of them at a time. Even if they're doing full mirroring instead of something like RAID-6, you're off by a factor of 2.
What's Strine for 'whoosh', mate?
"Foster's"