|
Cicero posted:Japanese salaryman work culture is insane and terrible and you're crazy if you think otherwise. Somehow I think you missed the point of his post.
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 04:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 13:00 |
|
|
Brannock posted:Somehow I think you missed the point of his post. I'm not sure if it's even accurate, either, given how paternalistic corporate culture is in Japan. Does drinking with work buddies constantly actually count as 'after work' if it's required by the company culture? Cicero fucked around with this message at 05:04 on May 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 05:02
|
|
|
axeil posted:I don't see the issue here. No one is using a fitbit for truly medically accurate info. If my heart rate is at 140 or 160 it's not a massive difference, it's just to get a ballpark estimate. People shouldn't use it for medical reasons but (having done support for a similar product) some users absolutely expect results with a comparable accuracy. Paradoxish posted:Yeah, if a fitbit is off by that much then it's completely useless because it isn't providing you with any information that you aren't already provided with by virtue of being alive. This is happening even with counting steps. Fitness trackers don't track actual steps, they give you a number that is pretty close to "right" based on analyzing continuous data and guessing a discrete number of times your foot went down - it's an estimate, not a count, and the estimates are way off for some people. Heck selling them as an activity estimator would be fine, it's just not what's happening. Probably cause it's not a very exciting product. Anyway speaking of unicorns and medical wearable tech... http://www.theverge.com/2016/5/27/11801118/Jawbone-clinical-health-wearable-hail-mary-UP-production
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 05:06
|
|
|
lancemantis posted:What's wrong with copyright on code? FOSS lives on copyright It appears that FSF has a different opinion on issue of copyrighting API: quote:Were it grounded in reality, Oracle's claim that copyright law gives them proprietary control over any software that uses a particular functional API would be terrible for free software and programmers everywhere. It is an unethical and greedy interpretation created with the express purpose of subjugating as many computer users as possible, and is particularly bad in this context because it comes at a time when the sun has barely set on the free software community's celebration of Java as a language newly suitable for use in the free world. Fortunately, the claim is not yet reality, and we hope Judge Alsup will keep it that way.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 09:03
|
|
|
axeil posted:I don't see the issue here. No one is using a fitbit for truly medically accurate info. If my heart rate is at 140 or 160 it's not a massive difference, it's just to get a ballpark estimate. I'm guessing it doesn't work well for Obese people in particular. Pulseoximetry is generally less sensitive when the arteries are below a bunch of fat.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 13:27
|
|
Chrungka posted:It appears that FSF has a different opinion on issue of copyrighting API: Oracle are not claiming the scope of control FSF say they are, nor is the nature of the law what they pretend it to be. APIs themselves are not copyrightable. API structure, sequence and layout are copyrightable. That's a very important difference-it's the foundation of a variety of copyright IP schema. People who want to use the same API structure can license it from the copyright holder, or reverse engineer it using a clean room procedure. Google ran into this problem because they intentionally violated the reverse engineering process. Practically every part of that statement is inaccurate to the law of the case. Regardless of what you think copyright law on APIs should be, the FSF isn't a good source to use when you want to know what the law actually is-they're being willfully dishonest. This is a problem with many organizations doing legal advocacy, but I have to admit I've never seen it be as craven as in the tech IP context.
|
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Oracle are not claiming the scope of control FSF say they are, nor is the nature of the law what they pretend it to be. APIs themselves are not copyrightable. API structure, sequence and layout are copyrightable. That's a very important difference-it's the foundation of a variety of copyright IP schema. People who want to use the same API structure can license it from the copyright holder, or reverse engineer it using a clean room procedure. Google ran into this problem because they intentionally violated the reverse engineering process. As I've tried to explain in the SCOTUS thread, the computer doesn't care about the legal distinction and the SSO is part of the API. APIs are effectively copyrightable now, depending on which language you're using.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Oracle are not claiming the scope of control FSF say they are, nor is the nature of the law what they pretend it to be. APIs themselves are not copyrightable. API structure, sequence and layout are copyrightable. That's a very important difference-it's the foundation of a variety of copyright IP schema. People who want to use the same API structure can license it from the copyright holder, or reverse engineer it using a clean room procedure. Google ran into this problem because they intentionally violated the reverse engineering process. Your "very important difference" is meaningless, because an API is, by definition, the structure, sequence, and organization of publicly exposed methods used to communicate with a system. Take away the structure, and there is nothing left, because an API is necessarily divorced from its implementation. And, as was discussed to death in the SCOTUS thread, it's impossible to use a clean-room reverse engineering process to come up with a compatible reimplementation of an API because the API is exactly the spec that goes into a clean room reverse engineering process. If APIs are in fact copyrightable, then every single clean room reverse engineering job ever done is a violation of API copyright. This is a fundamental change in software IP law, and trying to claim otherwise is hilariously disingenuous. Ultimately, you're trying to stake a claim on a distinction as meaningless as "books aren't copyrightable, the words in books are" - yes, that might be technically true, but it provides no insight and certainly doesn't support any arguments you try to build on top of it.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:As I've tried to explain in the SCOTUS thread, the computer doesn't care about the legal distinction and the SSO is part of the API. APIs are effectively copyrightable now, depending on which language you're using. Could you link to the post? I would like to read that discussion.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2016-05-18/this-could-be-the-end-of-the-tech-boom
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Could you link to the post? I would like to read that discussion. https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3590854&userid=40673&perpage=40&pagenumber=2#post459738429
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3590854&userid=40673&perpage=40&pagenumber=2#post459738429 Thanks! 
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 00:36
|
|
Munkeymon posted:As I've tried to explain in the SCOTUS thread, the computer doesn't care about the legal distinction and the SSO is part of the API. APIs are effectively copyrightable now, depending on which language you're using. "Part" =! "the API". It turns out language is important! Space Gopher posted:Your "very important difference" is meaningless, because an API is, by definition, the structure, sequence, and organization of publicly exposed methods used to communicate with a system. Take away the structure, and there is nothing left, because an API is necessarily divorced from its implementation. Yes. The words aren't copyrightable, the order and structure are.That is how copyright works. Clean room reverse engineering is entirely viable- otherwise past applications of the method wouldn't have been legal. Google decided to skip a bunch of steps and break the cleanroom- that's the whole reason the suit happened in the first place. You explicitly described the violative steps google took in the SCOTUS thread- why are you reversing on this now?
|
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Yes. The words aren't copyrightable, the order and structure are.That is how copyright works. Clean room reverse engineering is entirely viable- otherwise past applications of the method wouldn't have been legal. Google decided to skip a bunch of steps and break the cleanroom- that's the whole reason the suit happened in the first place. You explicitly described the violative steps google took in the SCOTUS thread- why are you reversing on this now? twodot fucked around with this message at 01:24 on May 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 01:18
|
|
twodot posted:Can you give the list of steps involved in doing a clean reverse engineering that produces a Java compatible library? My understanding of what a clean room would make such a thing impossible or a pointless formality. It's closer to your conception of the latter. The problem is that the alternative is no copyright on code structures. The same protections, and methods of reversal, exist for copyright and other IP in other settings. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 01:26 on May 29, 2016 |
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:It's closer to your conception of the latter. The problem is that the alternative is no copyright on code structures.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 01:27
|
|
twodot posted:I fine with having copyright on code structure, I want to understand what the people talking about clean rooms are trying to say, because my best understanding is they don't understand one of clean rooms or code structure, which isn't particularly charitable. The crux of the problem is that they're getting their information from a set of legal advocacy groups that want to disrupt(wahey) extant software IP law. Motivated reasoning's a hell of a drug.
|
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The crux of the problem is that they're getting their information from a set of legal advocacy groups that want to disrupt(wahey) extant software IP law. Motivated reasoning's a hell of a drug. Software IP law is now in flux, though, as the discussion in the SCOTUS thread and a glance at Wikipedia should tell you. It's really not clear where software fits, as its form and function are intertwined in a way that make copyright and patents both extremely awkward to apply, resulting in inconsistent case law, and making every legal challenge a crapshoot. You're unfairly tarnishing the FOSS community by comparing them to "disruptive" (read: flouting regulations through technology) startups.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 01:55
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Software IP law is now in flux, though, as the discussion in the SCOTUS thread and a glance at Wikipedia should tell you. It's really not clear where software fits, as its form and function are intertwined in a way that make copyright and patents both extremely awkward to apply, resulting in inconsistent case law, and making every legal challenge a crapshoot. You're unfairly tarnishing the FOSS community by comparing them to "disruptive" (read: flouting regulations through technology) startups. Is urban ground transportation and short term space rental not also in flux? Are there not similar changes and legal cases being brought in those sectors? The difference is the people who are speaking, and the language they use- and how close an affinity those people, and that language, have with the forum demographics. And Google has a lot more money and market power, of course. To be clear, I'm comparing Google (who set up the case to force a particular outcome that will give them greater leverage and shut out a competitor) to disruptive startups, in this particular case. The FSF or EFF are more like libertarian legal groups such as the WLF in this analogy- their ideology lets them see and present the information involved in only the way that makes their cause just. They are then accepted by people who are part of the culture as an objective and ethical source.
|
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The crux of the problem is that they're getting their information from a set of legal advocacy groups that want to disrupt(wahey) extant software IP law. Motivated reasoning's a hell of a drug. Actually, extant software IP law going back to a number of cases in the 1980s like AT&T v Coherent has generally held that as functional interfaces APIs are not themselves subject to copyright, only specific works describing APIs such as header files and manual pages are. So the literal file /usr/include/stdio.h in AT&T V7 UNIX was copyright AT&T, but the functions, variables, and constants described in that file were not, and only a couple of not-very-onerous steps were needed to produce a fully-compatible clean-room implementation. This current legal outlook, some of which goes back all the way to Amdahl, is what Oracle has been trying to upend as part of Oracle v Google. And that's why working software developers have been almost universally on Google's side. In a way the situation with APIs and copyright is very similar to databases and copyright: A specific database is covered by copyright, but the data within it isn't. So you can't photocopy and sell a telephone book, but you can transcribe the names, addresses, and phone numbers in it and then generate your own telephone book from that data and sell it. eschaton fucked around with this message at 10:10 on May 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 10:07
|
|
|
eschaton posted:In a way the situation with APIs and copyright is very similar to databases and copyright: A specific database is covered by copyright, but the data within it isn't. So you can't photocopy and sell a telephone book, but you can transcribe the names, addresses, and phone numbers in it and then generate your own telephone book from that data and sell it.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
It sounds like part of the problem here is Vox is explaining the rationale and folks are expecting him to justify it. The way I read it his argument is 'Stakeholders are pushing for an overreach and want to push this standard' and the response is 'but that standard is absurd and couldn't be met' when that's the whole point. It sounds reasonable to someone not familiar with code/software.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:"Part" =! "the API". It turns out language is important! Yes, much like how my bones are part of me. "We don't own people, just skeletons! It's NBD." is sort of how this line of argument sounds to programmers. Munkeymon fucked around with this message at 20:59 on May 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:Yes, much like how my bones are part of me. Look, maybe it's your fault for designing so much of your life around needing a skeleton, there are plenty of forms of life out there that get by without them. Just pay the bone license or work on alternatives. Alternately be another huge company that owns the right to skin, and sue us for using that without license and we'll settle the case by droppping our suit against you for using bones without a license.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:It's closer to your conception of the latter. The problem is that the alternative is no copyright on code structures. The same protections, and methods of reversal, exist for copyright and other IP in other settings. Yet again you (and everyone else claiming that a clean room implementation is the proper procedure here) manage to dodge giving an actual list of steps for that implementation, even at a high level. If it's as obviously possible as you claim, it shouldn't be impossible or even difficult for you to outline how it's supposed to be done. Here, I'll explain it for a standard clean-room reverse engineering process, as used successfully for the IBM and Sega BIOS cases. We'll call our hypothetical reverse engineering target Software X: - Get two teams of developers, call them A and B. It is imperative that the developers on Team B have never worked with Software X before. - Team A is given a copy of Software X. They treat it as a black box, and extensively document possible inputs, and what outputs they produce. They avoid using methods like debuggers and decompilers as much as possible to ensure that they're not documenting how Software X does its work, only what it does. The end result of Team A's efforts is an API specification. - Team B is given the API specification. This is the only exposure they will ever have to Software X over the course of the project. Their job is to build new software that implements the API specification provided by Team A in every detail. - If Team A's API specification was complete, detailed only the "what" rather than the "how", and Team B's implementation was accurate, then Team B's output will be a software implementation functionally identical to Software X that was provably not copied from Software X, because Team B never saw any details about the implementation of Software X to copy from. Note that this doesn't work for an API specification, because Team A has full access to Software X, and they're the ones producing the API specification. Their whole job is to copy the API described by Software X. It only works for an implementation, which isn't what's under discussion here. So, again - how does your hypothetical clean room process work for a copyrighted API spec? eschaton posted:Actually, extant software IP law going back to a number of cases in the 1980s like AT&T v Coherent has generally held that as functional interfaces APIs are not themselves subject to copyright, only specific works describing APIs such as header files and manual pages are. One interesting wrinkle here is that, in Java and most other modern languages, a given logical structure can only be expressed in one way, and it has to be character-for-character identical to any other expression of that logical structure (or very close to it). The Federal Circuit's decision seemed to put a lot of weight on the fact that Google "copied" a certain number of lines of "declaring code."
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
Coolness Averted posted:Look, maybe it's your fault for designing so much of your life around needing a skeleton, there are plenty of forms of life out there that get by without them. Just pay the bone license or work on alternatives. Yeah, just use PHP, the sea cucumber of languages
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:Yeah, just use PHP, the sea cucumber of languages 
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
twodot posted:The telephone book example fails immediately, no one thinks "arrange things alphabetically" is worthy of copyright. You can't encounter someone who thinks API structure should (sometimes) be copyrightable, and counter "Have you considered the most basic structure isn't copyrightable?". The point is that a database, being a collection of facts, is not covered under copyright at all, irrespective of the arrangement. There is no arrangement of the data in a telephone directory that allows the producer to use copyright to prevent someone else from producing an equivalent arrangement of the same data. The same is true for recipes: The ingredients, amounts, and steps in a recipe are not covered by copyright because they're considered facts, but the prose used in the steps and other descriptive text is, photographs are, and so on. What Oracle is arguing is essentially that the quantities and the steps in a recipe should also be covered by copyright—which is not what the courts have generally held for the past few decades, whether for recipes or for APIs.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 03:09
|
|
|
eschaton posted:The point is that a database, being a collection of facts, is not covered under copyright at all, irrespective of the arrangement.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 03:19
|
|
|
Can we not turn this thread into a major Oracle/Google writeup? The SCOTUS thread is already drat near unreadable due to this bullshit, so much so that I've lost all concept of what an API is or how it is made.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
More importantly, if this is such a goddamn great conversation to have across multiple threads regarding one specific case that doesn't even apply to Unicorns nor SCOTUS information, why doesn't it have its own thread made for it so armchair and/or professional lawyers/developers alike can argue past each other to their hearts' content?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 03:39
|
|
|
thecluckmeme posted:More importantly, if this is such a goddamn great conversation to have across multiple threads regarding one specific case that doesn't even apply to Unicorns nor SCOTUS information, why doesn't it have its own thread made for it so armchair and/or professional lawyers/developers alike can argue past each other to their hearts' content? Because it would turn to poo poo and get gassed in short order and everyone that wants to yell at each other about it would be right back where they are now. Also no one wants to be the poster that started the garbage thread.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 03:53
|
|
|
Some good news for a change: quote:Dutch Firm Trains Eagles to Take Down High-Tech Prey: Drones http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/world/europe/drones-eagles.html
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 04:36
|
|
|
put gopros on those eagles, monetize the meta disruption
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 08:04
|
|
|
The video that goes with that article is pretty cool.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 09:06
|
|
|
Very cool video. Although I don't know much about eagles or drones, I get the feeling that a larger craft would chew up any bird that tried to grab it. Maybe there is a technique that allows grasping of the drone body while avoiding all the rotors, but unless the eagle is throwing a net or using a fancier trick than I just watched, I think the blades of a medium sized drone would do serious damage to a living creature.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 10:30
|
|
|
Asimov posted:Very cool video. Although I don't know much about eagles or drones, I get the feeling that a larger craft would chew up any bird that tried to grab it. Maybe there is a technique that allows grasping of the drone body while avoiding all the rotors, but unless the eagle is throwing a net or using a fancier trick than I just watched, I think the blades of a medium sized drone would do serious damage to a living creature. This is more a solution to nosy assholes sending their small 400€ camera drones into airports than a catch all solutions to drones being where they shouldn't be.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 10:35
|
|
|
Potentially also cost effective given that I think airports already use birds of prey to keep birdstrikes down.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
Here, have a story about two of this thread's favorite things: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/driverless-car-startup-zoox-valued-at-1-billion-after-new-funding-round-2016-05-30 quote:The backer of a Silicon Valley autonomous car developer called Zoox said the secretive startup raised a fresh round of capital valuing it at more than $1 billion, roughly equal to a similar company General Motors Co. acquired earlier this month. Cruise Automation is the startup GM acquired: http://fortune.com/2016/03/11/gm-buying-self-driving-tech-startup-for-more-than-1-billion/ quote:General Motors this morning announced that it will acquire Cruise Automation, a San Francisco-based developer of autonomous vehicle technology. No financial terms were disclosed, but Fortune has learned from a source close to the situation that the deal is valued at “north of $1 billion,” in a combination of cash and stock.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 13:00 |
|
|
Speaking as someone whose cool fun start-up employer is in the process of getting acquired by a giant boring company, this thread doesn't exactly fill me with optimism but I'm glad I've been reading it for a while. It's cool, though. I knew the catered massages wouldn't last forever, and, fingers crossed this whole deal should let me pay off the last of our student debt and move someplace beautiful. gently caress, though... I guess I have to get another real job, eventually. Unless our chill, fun culture survives assimilation, because that happens sometimes, right? Right????
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 23:49
|
|
