Ask HN: How do I learn math for problem solving in CS? - <AUTHOR> My CS career started from High School, where I learned data structures and algorithms, and used them in problem solving competitions/olympiads and I still do (ACM-ICPC, TopCoder). I feel confident in applying these data structures and algorithms to a real world problems. Since I'm passionate in problem solving. But I feel that I'm missing one important thing - math. Math (Number Theory, Probability, Geometry and every topic CS student should now in this field) which will help one to come up with a solution and make one able to prove this solution.
If you know how can I fill this gap, or materials which will help me to do that, please, share them with me.
I really want to become better at problem solving. Thanks in advance!<p>PS. I am novice here. If someone else already asked a similar question, please, send the link and I will delete this post. <comment><USER2> How well do you understand the kind of elementary algebra equation solving that is taught in high school? If you don't understand it well enough to write a program that can solve easier elementary algebra equations, then learning how to write a program like this is a great way to start learning how math works.

If you are interested in discussing this topic, feel free to contact me using the email address that is in my profile.

<comment><AUTHOR> I've sent you email. Thank you!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Maybe Stanford got some courses on iTunes U, and properly other universities, i just use stanford for CS courses. :)

<comment><AUTHOR> oh, thank you! I will check it out.</comment></comment>


Indigenous imprisonment in Australia - <AUTHOR> http://www.buzzfeed.com/allanclarke/indigenous-imprisonment-in-australia

<comment><USER2> Sad state of affairs. Take care not to confuse correlation with causation. There have to be many confounding variables e.g. economics, education.</comment>


Deep Video Portraits - SIGGRAPH 2018 - <AUTHOR> https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.11714 <comment><AUTHOR> Video material for the paper at

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qc5P2bvfl44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qc5P2bvfl44)

Maybe watch that first. It's the exciting stuff.</comment>


Poop and Soda Bottles Threaten Air Force Rocket Program, Investigators Say - <AUTHOR> http://gazette.com/poop-pop-threaten-air-force-rocket-program-investigators-say/article/1618540 <comment><USER2> I worked on AWACS back in the early 2000s and we had an adversarial dynamic with our QA team. We would see them as 'just getting in the way', but I can now say, after working as a software developer, that without a strong QA (backed up by military laws), our planes would be flying with a lot of 'solutions' that would lead to unnecessary deaths.

</comment><comment><USER3> > At SpaceX, investigators say they spotted workers using tools that weren't > specified in a manual.

Could you imagine being so micromanaged that you'd literally need the Federal Government to change a manual to approve a tool you need?

<comment><USER4> Using the wrong wrench almost caused a nuclear catastrophe: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Damascus_Titan_missile_ex...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Damascus_Titan_missile_explosion)

It may seem like micromanagement, but small seemingly meaningless deviations from procedure can add up to big problems, particularly when dealing with space.

<comment><USER5> Doesn't sound like the tool in question had any real impact on that accident (so to speak). I'm guessing if you drop a 3-foot torque wrench through a fuel tank, it does just as much damage as a 3-foot socket wrench. The fact that they grabbed the wrong tool was entirely incidental to damaging the missile.

Also, it takes an extremely precise sequence of events to cause a nuclear detonation. A nearby explosion is not enough to do it, as you can obviously see here.

<comment><USER4> I'd recommend listening to the This American Life episode ([https://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio- archives/episode/634/...](https://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio- archives/episode/634/human-error-in-volatile-situations)) where they interview the two airmen involved.

tldr; The socket didn't properly fit the wrench and they had to manually hold the socket on the end of the wrench. One man dropped the socket, which fell through a small gap between the walkway and missile. The torque wrench was large enough that it would not have slipped through this gap if/when dropped.

<comment><USER6> And the larger problem is one of knowledge asymmetry.

If you're dealing with technology so complicated that one person cannot simultaneously design and repair / maintain it, then whoever performs the latter doesn't possess all the knowledge of the former.

Maybe they used an flammable alloy under certain conditions for engineering reasons.

Most metal doesn't burn. But do you want repair / maintenance techs making that assumption?

Multiple by 100,000 parts.

PS: A more realistic example was one of the Skunk Works projects. I forget the details, but either tools of special metallic composition or wooden tools had to be used to avoid damaging the flight characteristics of the aircraft.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Here's a detailed discussion on the SpaceX side: [https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/7ll89f/pentagon_wat...](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/7ll89f/pentagon_watchdog_cites_top_us_space_contractors/)

</comment><comment><USER8> Original source at [http://gazette.com/poop-pop-threaten-air-force-rocket- progra...](http://gazette.com/poop-pop-threaten-air-force-rocket-program- investigators-say/article/1618540)

<comment><USER9> Thanks, we've updated the link from [http://taskandpurpose.com/poop-soda- threaten-air-force-rocke...](http://taskandpurpose.com/poop-soda-threaten-air- force-rocket-program-investigators-say/).

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Sidebar: I read the title as "(poop and soda) bottles" instead of "poop and (soda bottles)," and was extremely confused.

I prefer to swap words around in cases like this to make it unambiguous, for example, "soda bottles and poop..."

<comment><USER8> The original title has the much punchier "poop and pop"

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Don't they typically test rockets in outdoors test ranges? And aren't rockets normally supposed to be able to operate outdoors?

Of course there is going to be dirt, rocks and yes, even fecal matter. What are they supposed to do, blow their hot exaust gases into a climate-controlled cleanroom?

<comment><USER7> FOD is a big deal and can cause a lot of damage. Flight areas are very carefully kept clear of any debris.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_object_damage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_object_damage)</comment></comment>


Why Theoretical Mathematics Is Important - <AUTHOR> http://medium.com/@austingandy/musings-on-theoretical-mathematics-a624287942d0 <comment><USER2> Is "Theoretical Mathematics" a British expression? Just asking..

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't believe so. Just the phrase I use to make a distinction between that and applied math. I guess "pure math" would be another way of saying the same thing.</comment></comment>


31 Steps to a Financial Tuneup - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/03/24/your-money/financial-tuneup-checklist.html?ref=your-money

<comment><USER2> I work for an insurance company and I can confirm the part about shopping for new home and auto insurances (at least the company I work for has a very significant discount if you have both at the same company).

OTOH I didn't want to raise my auto insurance deductible... in my case the savings was 1/5th of the amount the deductible went up... it depends on whether you're confident you won't get to use the policy.</comment>


The Sexism of School Dress Codes - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/10/school-dress-codes-are-problematic/410962/?single_page=true <comment><USER2> Dress Codes are simply another method of control and indoctrination (meaning directed education with a preconditional bias). Whether that is good or bad, necessary or superfluous, is a matter open to debate.

The problem is that, if we cannot agree on this fundamental precept, then any discussion as to the good or bad of a dress code is unproductive.</comment>


The Kinds of Employees You Want to Hire - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/sep2009/ca20090922_894897.htm?campaign_id=rss_topStories

<comment><USER2> I like how the author not so subtly compares the less self-driven employees to retarded people by saying they are like Forrest Gump.

<comment><USER3> Forest wins in the end so not sure that is such a great analogy :-)

<comment><USER4> He wins at the end because the movie is profoundly authoritarian and conservative: _keep your mouth shut and do what you're told, and you will be rewarded._

<comment><USER3> Interesting point but totally not my interpretation of that story. I read it more like Explore the world, find a trusted partner, figure out who you are, and then just do you thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I would have liked to see a direct link to the research paper, and told more about it: name, release date, length, sponsor; especially since the whole article is based on it.

This might be it:

Judge, T. A. (2009). Core self-evaluations and work success.

Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 58-62.

<http://www.ufstudies.net/tim/VITA/Judge-CSE.pdf>

\- but there are lots of similar papers linked from Judge's site. <http://www.ufstudies.net/tim/VITA/>

<comment><USER6> His work seems closely related to the concept of 'locus of control', a pretty well-studied area of psychology. People with an internal locus of control tend to be healther/more successful than those with an external locus of control.

Wiki page: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locus_of_control>

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I've experienced plenty of different business and personal coaches, and probably the most important lesson (hat tip to Open Up Communication [1]) links into this article: "I create and choose the whole of my own reality".

Not just the stuff I can control. Not just the stuff I think about and want to create. The WHOLE of my life.

Of course, it makes no intellectual sense. And it's tempting to water it down into Stephen Covey's 'Circle of Influence'. But as a guiding principle it's awesomely powerful.

I go through life knowing that I can personally take responsibility for _everything_ that happens to me. Which means I am empowered to change things, to make things happen, and to create exactly the life I want.

(Application of the principle is, of course, much more difficult. Still, even imperfectly applied, I see the results and I know I feel much better about my life than most of those around me.)

[1] <http://www.openup.com.au/>

<comment><USER5> "I create and choose the whole of my own reality".

This may be true, but it can't be known without massive self-awareness. I can only start off with that as a belief that may one day end up as knowledge from experience.

It's a good notion to use to test one's day to day experiences and see where they began internally to be manifested externally.

<comment><USER7> I suppose I intellectualize it a little like Pascal's Wager - I'll never know whether it's true or not, but when all things are weighted it's far better to believe than not.

<comment><USER5> Keep an open mind about God - beliefs will only block God out, or construe God in some pre-defined way. How does one keep an open mind? By not closing it.

To me, "God chooses your and its reality through you" is a better maxim to live by than "I create and choose the whole of my reality." Same thing actually, but in the latter it would be God saying the statement, rather than a person, or else a person very close to God.

"It is all futile" said Kind Solomon.

I am limited to choosing my reality to the extent that I can choose my dreams, which is basically impossible (unless lucid dreaming), but it is possible to choose the way one reacts to life events.

<comment><USER7> I guess my response to that is filtered because I don't believe in an interventionist God, but you make two good points.

Firstly, that an open mind (about anything - I made an analogy to Pascal's Wager but didn't introduce God into the discussion) is important. So often "I know" means "I say No" to possibility.

Secondly, I was initially inclined to think that giving God some agency in one's life defeats the initial argument I wanted to make about choice and power in life. On reflection, if you do believe in a God that can influence your reality, and believe you can communicate with her, then it's just another way of choosing dreams / goals and working to create them, and feeling like an important part of the whole universe.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Hm, and where am I on this scale?

I am pretty convinced that there are two types of events, those I can control and those I cannot control. I cannot control idiots in cars, so I cannot control if someone runs me over on my way to university, killing or crippling me, so I cannot control this change of my live.

However, I can certainly control that I get a good university degree and become a good developer and get to know people (even though this is always a hard internal struggling for some strongly introverted person like me).

But I guess, overall I agree with this article, which coincides with my basic principles (basically everything boiling down to: Failure is progress. Make things better or fail trying.), so yeah. With those remarks: good article :)

<comment><USER9> "I cannot control idiots in cars, so I cannot control if someone runs me over on my way to university, killing or crippling me..."

You can improve your dodging skills. Maybe play more Frogger. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Great - one more signal to fake in interviews. If enough interviewers believe that this is a discriminating sign (because they read it in businessweek), we have no choice but to flash it.

</comment><comment><USER11> "history repeats itself, try and you'll succeed. never doubt that you're the one and you can have your dreaaams. you're the best... around..."</comment>


HTML5 Datalist - <AUTHOR> http://davidwalsh.name/datalist

<comment><USER2> <http://caniuse.com/datalist>

Unfortunately still not supported on safari or IE9. Don't rush to throw away those Javascript widgets quite yet.

</comment><comment><USER3> This... this is phenomenal. Thank you for sharing this link.

This will cut my development time drastically because I use autocomplete on many different pages of an internal web application and I decide what browsers the sales people (85% of the company) use.

I'll for sure install Chrome for them and save the company time and money by using this HTML5 feature. Nice find!

</comment><comment><USER4> This is truly great, and might actually be something I could use—although it needs to interface with a list of hundreds or thousands of entries. I don't know if it is scalable in that case. Probably not, if it needs to display the entire list, which means that this intended for a relatively small list.

I recently had the non-existent pleasure—on the same project—of implementing a fall-back for the `datetime-local` input type, which is only available on very few browsers, even though it is absolutely critical to a good mobile experience.

This fails very gracefully compared to the `datetime-local` input type turning into a `text` input.

This is one of the perks of using Opera as my default desktop browser, by the way. Shame so many developers choose to ban it.

<comment><USER5> I have also thought of using them. One option if it doesn't scale is use ajax and get list from servers from what user types and still use this to skip the js/css work. Still reduces the work needed by quiet a bit.

<comment><USER4> Definitely. It just seems to go against the intent. But it's not like my project isn't littered with JS files, so a line of JavaScript more or less probably won't make much of a dent. Especially when it is a fairly lightweight service.

I already have a fair amount of HTML5 fall-back code and whatnot.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Chris Coyier made a great polyfill for datalist: <https://github.com/CSS- Tricks/Relevant-Dropdowns>

</comment><comment><USER7> Awesome feature, this will autocomplete very easy to implement.

</comment><comment><USER8> Demo didn't work for me on iOS 6...

<comment><USER9> It's not supported in iOS, but all recent Desktop browsers implement it (except Safari).

<http://caniuse.com/#search=datalist></comment></comment>


Future of Analytics: Big Data and Machine Learning - <AUTHOR> http://www.pierrelechelle.com/future-analytics

<comment><AUTHOR> The website was down for a few minutes. I added more resources to the server ;)!</comment>


Why Google Isn't In It To Win - <AUTHOR> http://www.pchristensen.com/blog/articles/why-google-isnt-in-it-to-win/

<comment><USER2> Google maps and gmail are "dysfunctional" and behind MapQuest and hotmail or yahoo mail?

I don't know (personally) a single hotmail user, AFAIK people only use it for spamboxes. And MapQuest? WTF?

<comment><AUTHOR> I know, I love Google products and use them extensively, but they all trail their competitors. Probably inertia where people won't change even though there's a much better, equally free alternative. I think it comes from Google seeing a useful online service and building their own better version. By the time Google's offering is up, users have already developed habits on other apps.

I guess rather than dysfunctional I meant "relatively unpopular". The fact that you don't know a single hotmail user is a reflection of the kind of people you know, because hotmail and yahoo mail have multiple times more users than gmail. Technical superiority doesn't always (or even usually) win. Heck, IE7 crashes on my wife a couple times a day and she still refuses to use Firefox (which is installed on her computer with a copy of her bookmarks).

By behind, I _definitely_ mean in # of users, not technologically.

<comment><USER2> Peter, where do you get your data from? Just curious.

Among our users gmail addresses are by far the most popular with yahoo being distant 2nd. In my opinion google seems to dominate every market they wish to enter, with one notable exception (orcut).

<comment><AUTHOR> I've seen it enough different places to believe it. Here's one: [http://www.marketingvox.com/archives/2007/05/14/gmails- users...](http://www.marketingvox.com/archives/2007/05/14/gmails-users-fewer- but-younger-richer-than-yahoos-hotmails-2/) or this [http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/11/09/single-ajax- interface-f...](http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/11/09/single-ajax-interface- for-yahoo-mail-im-coming/)

Here's one about maps: [http://manojjasra.blogspot.com/2008/01/mapquest-vs- google-ma...](http://manojjasra.blogspot.com/2008/01/mapquest-vs-google-maps- google-closing.html)

Just google "[google's product] vs [competitor 1] vs [competitor 2]" and you'll see the same pattern. I think most Hacker News readers can't believe this because most of the people we know (heck, even our customers) are technically savvy. Go pick any random group of non-geeks (like say school teachers, firemen, visual artists, secretaries, parents of college students, etc) and ask them which site they use for email.

Take you for example. In order to use PikLuk, you have to a) have kids, b) have computer/internet, c) know that bad stuff is on the internet, d) be concerned about your kids finding bad stuff on the internet, and e) be willing to spend time screening sites and setting up a whitelist (or however it works). Pretty much all of those skew towards upper-middle class educated people.

Besides, how worried can you be about your kids finding bad stuff if you can't even find a mail program better than Hotmail?</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Google Passes Microsoft's Market Value as PC Loses to Web - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-01/google-passes-microsoft-s-market-value-as-pc-loses-to-web

<comment><USER2> I think Google has a kind of purpose and drive which will take it very very far.

They want to "organize the world's information", but that's less than half the story - an even bigger challenge is making all this information not only understandable and usable to humans but making it all work seamlessly together - a monumental task they are barely getting started at.

Unrelated (but necessary) they also seem to be doing very well at the organizational aspect of absorbing new ideas and companies and integrating them into themselves.

<comment><USER3> There is a lot I don't like about Google, but Google Maps, Project Glass, and the automated cars are nothing but inspiring.

Just the fact that they transported us to other countries so everyone with an internet connection could go to Paris is laudable. And now they're going to explore the final frontier of Earth underwater.

After iPhone and iPad, like them or not, Google is the one of the "big" companies the most involved in inventing the future.

<comment><USER4> Though Glass is amazing, it will give a whole new meaning to tracking user information.

As you get information regarding what you're seeing, Google is logging everything you see.

A map with with a line detailing everywhere you've been over the course of years. A video displaying everything you saw on your real trip to Paris or wherever else-- not based on what you saw that day, but based on the information Google has about that area, those landmarks, etc.

Privacy could cease to exist while you're wearing Google Glass.

<comment><USER5> Recording alone is doesn't equate to a loss of privacy. If you kept detailed written notes on everywhere you go, as long as those notes don't get disclosed to anyone else, you haven't lost any privacy.

Taking a paranoid and oversimplified approach to privacy makes it's more difficult to have the complex, nuanced discussions necessary to actually protect privacy in meaningful ways.

<comment><USER4> I don't agree with your accusation of paranoia.

Keeping detailed notes on everywhere you go isn't something that would be done as lightly as putting on a pair of glasses. You would consider the implications of the existence of that data before keeping it. With something like Glass, that part of the process gets skipped.

The argument for trusting Google with your data is that their privacy policy keeps your data safe. I don't doubt that Google has the best of intentions, but that doesn't mean my data is safe. A snooping employee, a change in policy that isn't necessarily over the line but isn't comforting either, security breaches, subpoenas (in the spirit of [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/8/twitter- fight...](http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/8/twitter-fights- subpoena-in-nyc-occupy-arrest-case/)). There are a lot of ways that having that data in someone else's pocket can backfire.

Yes, it would be fine if there were some guarantee that no one could ever see my data. There isn't. It was not my intention to oversimplify anything. The last thing I want is to cause damage to the cause.

Edit: grammar

<comment><USER5> It's not paranoid when you include the caveats, as you do here. But to simply say that "Privacy could cease to exist while you're wearing Google Glass" is fear mongering, or paranoia. That statement is both staggerly broad in nature and at the same time, unqualified.

At least Google Glass is an _opt-in_ form of monitoring and observation. If you don't want to wear it, you don't have to. If you want to take it off, you can. Those aspects alone mean it's a lot less worrisome than existing, and much more involuntary, invasions of our privacy.

<comment><USER6> Opt-in for the user, but not opt-in for the people around them. I don't get to choose to not be recorded. Compounded with modern law stating if you're in public, you can be legally recorded, and that it's already difficult enough as is to explain to people you'd rather they not tag you as being at a location or to take photos and instantly upload them... It's really worrisome. The only reason it isn't is because it's not popular.

If you "have nothing to hide", it's not a big deal. If you're fighting for custody of your child, transgender, gay, a targeted minority, visit a psychologist regularly, or even just happen to do a few things one day that could be misconstrued, all of a sudden, the potential of it taking off becomes a very big deal - sometimes much more so than current privacy issues.

<comment><USER5> In that respect it's no different from the hundreds of security cameras most of us pass by each day. If you're doing something in the presence of someone else's view, and you know they're pointing a camera of any type at you, it's hard to argue you have an expectation of privacy.

It's really hard to point at Glass and say it's materially different from the broad array of recording devices already out there. If you're someone trying to avoid being recorded, those are a much bigger problem - they're pervasive, generally have better viewpoints (can see more total area) and often have built-in illumination as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Alternative headline: Google passes Microsoft's market value as Microsoft gives gobs of cash to shareholders rather than hold onto it to inflate market value.

Still, it's a significant thing I suppose. But we tend to ignore the cash position of companies in stories like this. If Google suddenly paid out 100 billion to shareholders tomorrow then it's market value would rightly drop by about 100 billion, but that wouldn't mean Microsoft was suddenly winning again.

</comment><comment><USER8> Funny APPL has a market cap (624B) that is bigger than Google (248) and "wintel" (248 + 115 = 363) _combined_.

Seriously, that Google has lapped the larger part of what was the Microsoft / Intel juggernaut of the last century is notable of course, but I wonder if its the wrong question.

<comment><USER9> Tiny correction since I see this mistake often (and I was making it myself in the past): the symbole for Apple is AAPL, not APPL. Not intuitive like Apple is supposed to be, huh? :)

<comment><USER10> You can blame NASDAQ for that, not Apple ;-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> They haven't quite done it on a dividend-adjusted basis yet though.

</comment><comment><USER12> Weak signal given the size of the companies and their volatilities.

Let's observe the quoted, albeit stale, Google market capitalisation of $249.2 billion with a current vega-weighted mean implied volatility (market's opinion of what Google's volatility will be) of 31.12% and the quoted Microsoft market cap of $248.7 billion with an IV index of 22.51%. The question is, assuming these two Gaussian random variables vary independently [1], what is the probability that GOOG is still bigger than MSFT in one year? The answer is a _hair_ above 50%. Plugging in $249.65 billion for Google and $248.02 billion for Microsoft (closer to present values) this probability rises closer to 51%.

Conclusion: insufficient evidence that this is more than random market jittering just yet.

[1] If this were more than a quick, stylised analysis I'd construct a covariance matrix or copula to describe the dependency structure. Given the razor thin odds, however, it is unlikely that correlation will help the OP's case too much.

<comment><USER13> It's still a rather remarkable milestone. In a relatively short amount of time, the #1 "unstoppable" company in tech was passed by both it's smaller competitor (Apple) and an entirely new company (Google).

<comment><USER14> It makes me wonder if both Apple and Google will, in a relatively short amount of time, be surpassed by a company that doesn't exist yet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Yet another "market value defines losing/winning" article between 2 products that don't even compete.

</comment><comment><USER16> It's funny to call it "PC loses to Web" when MS doesn't actually make the PC but the software that _runs_ on the PC. Whether you use Google or Microsoft, you are using a "PC" in the terms of the article. One might say that it is more about a three way contest where MS is losing mainly to Apple, depressing their price down lower than Google, and Google is going up for other reasons.

To the extent it is about Google, this is really about commoditization of software : Google is commodotizing the whole OS into the (free) browser. They are commodotizing office software into free Google Apps. They are showing that if you do it at scale and over the web you can operate at such efficiency that you basically give people all this stuff Microsoft charges for and still make huge amounts of money from the advertising revenue, or you can have pay model where the costs are an order of magnitude less than what MS needs to survive in its current form.

</comment><comment><USER17> 1) PC stands for Personal Computer. It is not synonymous with Microsoft or Windows. Personal Computer.

2) The web is useless with out Personal Computers or personal computing devices such as smart phones so the web hasn't lost to the PC and the PC hasn't lost to the web, they need each other.

</comment><comment><USER18> Google's long time dream of becoming a bigger company than Microsoft is becoming real.

</comment><comment><USER19> That's something of a non sequitur, I would think.

</comment><comment><USER20> I guess search is a business after all :)

</comment><comment><USER21> PC loses to Web _ads_ is more likely.

I think Google's got better at getting people to click on ads. For example, one of the following is a search result and the other is an ad. How many people can differentiate between them on various monitors?

<http://i.imgur.com/Wmdd0.png>

I remember the time when Google differentiated itself by clearly marking ads, now it's no longer true for high value keywords.

<comment><USER22> It's quite clear to me which is which just from the color differences. You also cut the "ads related mesothelioma (?)" at the top of the section, which should make it even more clear. And there's the fact that people who understand the difference have already learned where Google ads are on the page.

<comment><USER23> Every HN reader knows that. But "normal" web users do not know it (anymore?). Every so often I see some anecdotal evidence of that when I watch people doing searches.

<comment><USER22> There are limits to the amount of due diligence companies should have to do to ensure that people know they are clicking on ads. Anyone who is _interested_ in avoiding clicking on ads will easily identify Google's, or not see them at all via a software solution. For the rest, there's not much short of an acknowledgement overlay that will get the message across reliably (for text ads -- image ads are easier, but google doesn't have them).

<comment><USER24> >There are limits to the amount of due diligence companies should have to do to ensure that people know they are clicking on ads.

There are also limits on disguising search results as ads.

>For the rest, there's not much short of an acknowledgement overlay that will get the message across reliably (for text ads -- image ads are easier, but google doesn't have them)

Really? Just increasing the contrast or adding a border around the border or using extra spacing as a separator or another separator can help a lot. But it's hard to make changes that hurt the bottom line. Changing it the opposite way is much easier. Google has a lot of UI and UX experts and I don't think the changes are accidental at all. In fact, they must be very carefully planned.

Edit: Found an old screenshot where the difference is much more apparent.

<http://www.jensense.com/archives/adsensehijack.gif>

<comment><USER22> Basically, clutter up the page more? Facebook has no background, nor do Yahoo! (front page) or Reddit (sidebar). Bing's and Yahoo!'s SERPs and Reddit's sponsored link are near Google's in terms of contrast and signage. Although Reddit opts for a border but conflates ad space with space that is used to promote results algorithmically, because it's not sufficiently confusing I guess. In terms of HN darlings, DuckDuckGo is actually worse (approximately the same contrast, "Sponsored result" doublespeak rather than just calling a spade a spade). You're asking Google to follow a standard of behavior that none of the other major sites I visit reach.

In terms of industry norms, Google is about as good as it gets. Maybe you feel that's not enough, and I guess that's a qualitative judgment that you're free to make. People will differ on things like this occasionally :P. I'd ask for some kind of harm analysis at the very least before I accept that there's anything untoward going on.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Creative TLD Use? - <AUTHOR>

I've been working on an education-related project, and after going through the typical domain name hell, I think I've found a name: Educatious.
I've bought both Educatio.us and Educatious.com, but I thought I'd solicit some opinions on the .us domain. Is using a TLD in such a way confusing and gimmicky or cool and space-saving?
Also, feel free to comment on the name itself. <comment><USER2> I think it's kind of lame to have a site about education with some made up variation of the word 'education' as the name. It's fine to use a made up word with no meaning. It's fine to use a play on words. It's also ok to use some completely unrelated word (like delicious or Amazon). This is a variation of a real word that carries with it the meaning of the root word, but it's the kind of word a stupid person might use while thinking it makes him sound intelligent. I don't think it's a great fit and probably doesn't convey the type of image you're going for. That's just my opinion so take it with a grain of salt.

<comment><AUTHOR> I looked for words endlessly, but I'll keep looking. My investment so far is just the (relatively cheap) domain name.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I'm not a big fan of "trite" urls making use of .us, .me, .foo extensions unless it's for a trivial application (ie: non commercial). Trying to tell someone "Have you used delicious?... No, DEL dot icio dot US. No, it's in the .us tld, with del. instead of www. Here, I'll write it down for you. Fuck it..."

For the education market, which IME, is not exactly at the forefront of technology understanding in a lot of cases, I wouldn't get too creative there :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Good point, these won't be your typical del.icio.us users.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Creative tlds are really confusing, don't do it. For the longest time I didn't use del.icio.us because I couldn't remember how the domain name was broken up.

I'm on the fence for the name educatious itself. Can you provide any details on what type of service is the website? I tend to prefer names that are two spelled out words or a completely made up word.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's focused on classroom interaction, so it will be used by both teachers and students.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> If you got the .com, I don't see a reason for having the .us. It might have been cool a few years ago, but there's no substitute for you.com. I mean, keep it around as an alias just in case, but I would definitely use the .com as the primary page.

</comment><comment><USER6> Considering most people think in terms of .com, and browsers let you type "xyz" to guess "xyz.com", you're really better off choosing a word that users can type without remembering where the dots go.

</comment><comment><USER7> Are you in the bay area? There's a few education startups around here you may want to know about.

</comment><comment><USER8> It has always been confusing, but now is considered gimmicky and tired.

</comment><comment><USER9> Educatious isn't easily spelt, I'm not really keen..</comment>


Tell HN: Consider the implications of Google pulling google.cn - <AUTHOR>

When google.cn was available but censored, anyone in the US could simply run the same query on both and make a list of the missing results in google.cn to tell what was being censored.
Such a list lent itself to easily gathering the censored documents and distributing them via other secure means to China.
Now, thanks to Google, that is impossible.  Did this fact really escape the minds at Google?
Google.cn was a great window into what the Chinese government doesn't want the Chinese people to see... now it's gone. <comment><USER2> To be fair, you can easily do the same with any number of other search engines (e.g. Yahoo). In fact, the original metric that you've proposed isn't very useful because the same search terms mean different things in different languages. For instance, in China the Tiananmen Square protests are called the "June Fourth Incident" (literally: 六四事件) so comparing a search for an English phrase with the same phrase on google.cn might not be meaningful.

If you really just want to know what topics are being censored, there are a number of human rights organizations and non-profits that track such things.

<comment><AUTHOR> You don't have to search google.com in English, you can use the exact same search phrase in either language, and if you go over the first 100 pages of results you can get quite a good list even with imprecise search phrases.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is a strange post to me. Are you saying that Google deciding not to allow censored results is a bad decision or are you just pointing this out? I'm trying to figure out what your position on this is.

<comment><AUTHOR> I do not understand Google's decision.

First, the Chinese people would be better off _with_ google.cn, regardless of whether or not it's censored. If anything, having quality results for non- censored topics will help them build economic prosperity, satisfy curiosity, etc.

Second, the decision makes it difficult to tell exactly what is being censured. This helps the Chinese government significantly. The most dangerous form of ignorance is when we don't know what we don't know.

Third, Google had risen above the issue by indicating in google.cn search results pages that information had been censored. This is a powerful anti- censorship message with every search. Now it's gone.

It does not take courage to give up and pull out of China, it takes courage to design a system so essential that the Chinese government relents on its censorship rules.

In reality, Google is not winning in search in China, so rather than have to continually answer to investors about why Google can't manage to make a dent in the search market in China, Google can now claim that it has a noble humanitarian stance. As I've shown above, the stance is neither noble or humanitarian.

I can't believe there is nearly a rate of 100% of people in the west falling for this ploy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Scraping Google is against their TOS, so your point is null and void.</comment>


PostgreSQL 8.4 Released - <AUTHOR> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/static/release-8-4.html
 After many years of development, PostgreSQL has become feature-complete in many areas. This release shows a targeted approach to adding features (e.g., authentication, monitoring, space reuse), and adds capabilities defined in the later SQL standards. The major areas of enhancement are:

    * Windowing Functions
    * Common Table Expressions and Recursive Queries
    * Default and variadic parameters for functions
    * Parallel Restore
    * Column Permissions
    * Per-database locale settings
    * Improved hash indexes
    * Improved join performance for EXISTS and NOT EXISTS queries
    * Easier-to-use Warm Standby
    * Automatic sizing of the Free Space Map
    * Visibility Map (greatly reduces vacuum overhead for slowly-changing tables)
    * Version-aware psql (backslash commands work against older servers)
    * Support SSL certificates for user authentication
    * Per-function runtime statistics
    * Easy editing of functions in psql
    * New contrib modules: pg_stat_statements, auto_explain, citext, btree_gin
 <comment><USER2> tsally, don't look!

I was hoping to see simple built-in replication in 8.4 (didn't make it into 8.3, see here: [http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/database-soup/postgresql- develop...](http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/database-soup/postgresql-development- priorities-31886)), so I guess it's on the 8.5 wishlist.

<comment><USER3> Part of the issue is that there is no such thing as "simple" replication unless one means "unreliable" replication. Simple replication is just shooting off the same SQL insert/update query on two servers. In the best scenario, that means that if you use a time function, you're likely to get two different results. In the worst case, it fails on one server and data gets out of sync.

Really, it's not that PostgreSQL needs more replication or built-in replication. It needs _better_ replication than any of the current solutions. pgpool, while great as a connection pooler, is a terrible replication solution. Slony-I is based off triggers and its communication costs grow in quadratically (O(n^2) - yuck!). Plus, Slony-I requires an immense amount of setup for every table and every key. Mammoth replicator, which seems to be the closest to the right track, has a website that doesn't show much life and only a beta release for download. Plus, it still looks like there's a good amount of setup.

What we all really want is for PostgreSQL to implement a log-shipping based replication system where we can say "replicate this database" or "replicate these tables" to another server and have it just work. But there's nothing simple about that.

<comment><USER4> I completely agree there's nothing simple about that, but ever since we switched from Slony-I to Londiste at Justin.tv I couldn't be happier. It's been completely bulletproof, recovers from errors easily, and makes schema upgrades a breeze.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's a shame that PostgreSQL still lacks meaningful XML support. That's one critical area where the commercial relational database vendors are way ahead.

<comment><USER6> Why on earth would you store XML data in a database? XML is for when you have structured data but _no_ database. Any structure you can store in XML is already catered for in conventional RDBMS design. And if you just want to store the string, there is nothing stopping you from doing that.

<comment><USER5> There are a lot of applications that benefit from native XML storage in a database. Here are some examples: <http://www-01.ibm.com/software/data/db2/customers/> . Of course those customer statements are somewhat biased coming through IBM, but still fairly accurate and realistic.

Storing XML as a string is really not very useful since you can't query into the document contents. You also can't create indexes on particular elements or attributes for fast access.

Microsoft has a good explanation of why it isn't necessarily appropriate to store XML structures in a conventional RDBMS. I'll quote it here:

"The XML data model has characteristics that make it very hard if not practically impossible to map to the relational data model. XML data has a hierarchical structure that may be recursive; relational databases provide weak support for hierarchical data (modeled as foreign key relationships). Document order is an inherent property of XML instances and must be preserved in query results. This is in contrast with relational data, which is unordered; order must be enforced with additional ordering columns. Re- assembling the result during querying is costly for realistic XML schemas that decompose the XML data into a large number of tables."

[http://msdn.microsoft.com/en- us/library/ms345117(SQL.90).asp...](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en- us/library/ms345117\(SQL.90\).aspx#sql2k5xml_topic2)

<comment><USER7> Ok, seriously? You're asking an RDBMS to index into XML data you've shoved into a column?

Quoting Microsoft & IBM on database design is like quoting GM & Chrysler on vehicle design. All are years behind and focused on an under-informed and declining customer base.

2 things:

1\. Postgres supports both Regular Expressions and indexing on expressions. If you can't index your table on a regex expression, you are probably doing something wrong.

2\. Reconstructing full XML documents from a single column based on a query is a lazy anti-pattern. Either a) store the document in a way that it can be retrieved on demand, or b) structure the data and the query in a way that is performant. Jamming a verbose textual representation of data into a single column of a table and then demanding performance is a fundamental misunderstanding and misuse of an RDBMS table.

<comment><USER5> Apparently you don't understand how it actually works. At least in the case of DB2, the database engine doesn't store a "verbose textual representation" of XML documents. It breaks them down into a more efficient internal binary format that still preserves the structure.

I deal with complex XML documents that go a dozen or more levels deep. It would certainly be possible to represent that data in a relational structure. But then to query based on the value of a deeply nested element would require a large number of table joins. Keeping everything in a single XML column is much simpler and faster, since the specific inner element values can be indexed.

Hierarchical databases have been around for years, and actually predate relational databases. XML databases are just a specialization of hierarchical databases. Some applications are a better fit for the relational model and some are a better fit for the hierarchical model. With hybrid databases you get the best of both worlds and can choose the right tool for the job.

<comment><USER6> _"Apparently you don't understand how it actually works."_

Man, nope. No disrespect but if you are regularly querying _12 levels deep_ into _an XML file you have stored in your database_ then IMO you are almost certainly doing something horribly, horribly wrong.

<comment><USER5> Apparently you've never worked with complex healthcare data. If you can figure out a simpler way be sure to let us know.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I am salivating over the new WITH RECURSIVE ... SELECT ... syntax (<http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/static/sql-select.html>). There's a very hairy piece of C++ code in my group's codebase that grinds over a certain schema to perform a certain transitive closure, and if I can redo that operation in SQL, we might be able to change its status from "only godlike programmers may dare touch this code" to "only demigodlike programmers may dare touch this code".

</comment><comment><USER9> "A dump/restore using pg_dump is required for those wishing to migrate data from any previous release."

Don't know much about postgresql, but that sounds fun...

<comment><USER10> It's one command to dump and one command to restore:

pg_dump -Fc database > database.backup

 _upgrade postgresql_

pg_restore -d database database.backup

<comment><USER11> You should use pg_dumpall rather than pg_dump, typically. Also, remember to use the pg_dump implementation from the _new_ version of PostgreSQL (e.g. 8.4), not the old one (e.g. 8.3).

There's also the new (beta) pg_migrator tool which allows upgrades to be performed without a dump + reload. <http://pgfoundry.org/projects/pg- migrator/></comment></comment></comment>


How I accidentally lost my social skills - <AUTHOR> http://swizec.com/blog/how-i-accidentally-lost-my-social-skills/swizec/6434

<comment><USER2> It would be a more interesting article if he managed to say HOW he lost his social skills, rather than simply observing that he had done so.

<comment><AUTHOR> I might have done too much alluding and not enough explaining.

They were gone because I simply stopped pushing myself to talk to strangers and to even go out much.</comment></comment>


British cave explorer demands $190m in damages from Elon Musk - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/dec/06/elon-musk-trial-pedo-guy-damages <comment><USER2> They shot themselves in the foot 'demanding' 190m (I read 170m elsewhere I think), that's absurd. Not defending the personal insult/slander/whatever you want to call it either but to turn around and seek that much in damages is just plain greedy and opportunistic.</comment>


Keeptime: avoid procrastination by hearing the time announced every 30 minutes - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/cydrobolt/keeptime <comment><USER2> I read that as 30 seconds and I was like wow! that's genius. I need that.

<comment><AUTHOR> haha :)</comment></comment>


Norton I, Emperor of the United States - <AUTHOR> http://www.sfmuseum.org/hist1/norton.html <comment><USER2> While I don't believe that this belongs on HN, I will say that Emperor Norton's Wikipedia page (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Norton>) is far more interesting than what is presented here.</comment>


Ask HN: Can I tell investors, who procrastinate I need money NOW? - <AUTHOR>

I have a couple investors who said they want to invest and will send term-sheet. Now it drags for a couple months and really got to the point that their procrastination is hurting the company.
Is it ok to tell them we need money NOW because burn-rate etc.?
How else can I enforce a deadline for investment? <comment><USER2> You'll lose all negotiating leverage with those investors and possibly spook them into not investing.

The best way to get people to actually move is to create some competition. Seek out other investors, and when they're ready to invest, circle back to the original folks you were talking with and say "We've had some interest from other investors, and the round is closing NOW [or some short deadline like a week]. Do you want in or not?"

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you! This part about "round closing NOW" always puzzled me. I understand there is a tradition to set deadlines like that - "raising NNN by YY", but what if the deadline comes and I don't have 100% of my round in? I set a new deadline?

<comment><USER3> You reassess the business and dust off your exit strategy.

If the investors already know what your runway looks like and they haven't given you a term sheet, they aren't going to be investing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> "The best way to get investment is to not need it", to paraphrase someone. So maybe work on making the company work rather than getting too desperate/needy.

I guess it's pretty easy to say that and a lot harder to actually do it though, so good luck!

</comment><comment><USER5> I see anything an investor does (outside of writing a check) as meaning "no". Dragging out a conversation for months, means "no". When an investor really wants to invest, nothing on heaven or earth will stop them from putting money in your hand.

I would just operate under the assumption that they're not interested, and raise money elsewhere.

</comment><comment><USER6> This is the reason you never stop raising until money shows up in your account. Forget about investors dragging their feet, focus on recruiting the new investors. Once you have the money from some investors in your account/check in hand, circle back with the other investors to see if they still want to join the round.

</comment><comment><USER7> You might want to read PG's essay about fund raising [0]. He advises to "hear no til you hear yes" amongst other things.

[0] paulgraham.com/fr.html

</comment><comment><USER3> You can't. Your only real recourse is to deceive them into believing they may miss the opportunity, but that is a very, very bad and dangerous step to take.

</comment><comment><USER8> Investor dragging feet on term sheet?

You probably told them a milestone within the range of stalling.

No near term milestones!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you, that actually may be one of the reasons.

But I met the milestone! With sweat and blood, many good people died as we were reaching that stone.</comment></comment>


Oblique Strategies: Prompts for Programmers - <AUTHOR> http://kevinlawler.com/prompts

<comment><USER2> Programmers are not artists and have no "creative block". What is he talking about?

<comment><USER3> _Programmers are not artists_

True. Mostly.

 _and have no "creative block"._

False (with a possible exception for mindless code monkeys, if such actually exist). It's not hard to get stuck on a wrong approach to a problem, or to _know_ you're doing something wrong but not quite _why_ it's wrong, or to have your mind go blank when you're trying to solve something.</comment></comment>


Android developer - <AUTHOR>

Hi guys!
I would like to start developing Android applications.
First - let me introduce myself: 1) I have an entrepreneur spirit 2) I have a Masters degree in Computer Science from one of the top cs schools in eastern Europe. 3) I've built this complete project for my graduate work:
www.aimcrane.com (idea from scratch to final product, including electronics, software, and shooting a video). 4) I've won medals (1st prize on a country level) from programming in high school. Im kind of visionary hard worker type of guy.
Although I work for top software company in Croatia, I decided that  I want to have my own company, and mainly see myself building android applications in future.
I talked to my friend entrepreneur, and he told me this is the place to start and that you can probably help me out in a start.
I'd be also interested in doing small/midsize client work.
So.. do I need to say more.. I would like to get a little bit of your response, so I know where I am. drop me an email if you'd like to work with me: scajicATgmailDOTcom <comment><USER2> Suggestion: Change the topic to something more... well, topical, like "Ask HN: How do I start developing for Android?"</comment>


Google responds aggressively to Oracle Java suit - <AUTHOR> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20101005114201136 <comment><USER3> I'm definitely rooting for Google on this one, they do plenty of weird stuff themselves but Oracle is behaving like a complete bully in this whole saga. Since they acquired SUN it's been going from bad to worse in a hurry, to the point where major Java users are starting to wonder if they made the right decision committing themselves to the platform.

Time will tell on how this will turn out, I don't expect a case of this magnitude to take less than a few years, these are just the opening salvos.

Oracle has a lot to lose here, and that's not just the lawsuit.

The analysis presented here is pretty damning of Oracles behavior, especially the fact that the counter is that they have taken the opposite position before they owned Java through the SUN acquisition.

.NET just might see an upsurge because of all this.

<comment><USER4> Oracle was probably hoping for an out of court resolution, similarly to how Microsoft was able to do with HTC.

Google instead has to defend it with everything it has, because lately Android phone manufacturers are being under attack by Apple and Microsoft (Nokia could be joining soon).

Regardless of the result ... this whole affair is going to generate a ton of bad press for Oracle, and I hope they learned something from the SCO lawsuit and just back off before it's too late.

And when comparing this lawsuit with SCO versus IBM and Novell, Oracle sells database management software, a field in which Google probably has patents by now. Were they hoping for a cross-licensing deal or something?

<comment><USER5> 1) Consumers don't care; most of them have never heard of Oracle and 2) Oracle's large corporate customers will cheer them on for defending their patents.

Oh and 3) Google's "do no evil" schtick is a triumph of PR, but that's _all_ it is. They are just a corporation like anyone else, and they will do what's right for them, period.

<comment><USER4>
         Consumers don't care

Customers (the ones paying money) care about doing business with winners, not hypocritical trolls (SCO was one, the jury is still out on Oracle). And starting IP lawsuits instead of delivering products has a desperation stench attached; and you can bet that Oracle's customers care about that.

And speaking of corporate customers, those include companies like Adobe which also have investments on top of Java.

         Oracle's large corporate customers will cheer them on for defending
         their patents.

This line of reasoning I don't get: are they earning anything from Oracle's lawsuit?

Quite the contrary, unless you have a patent arsenal the size of Microsoft's or IBM's, patents are one of the biggest nightmares you can have, especially since this lawsuit proves that companies like Oracle aren't acquiring patents just for "defensive purposes" and lawsuits are not reserved just to patent trolls.

          Google's "do no evil" schtick is a triumph of PR, but that's all it is

Corporations are recognized by the law to have rights and responsibilities like natural persons. Companies should and are punished for their bad behavior in society.

Regardless of Google's morality, this discussion is not about Google, but about Oracle's lawsuit. Substitute Google with "X" and it would be the same.

<comment><USER6> _are they earning anything from Oracle's lawsuit?_

Well Oracle would probably be granted damages if so the court finds that the patent was infringed.

<comment><USER7> Oracle will earn something through winning the lawsuit, but their customers will not, which is what that line was referring to.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Very off-topic, I am sorry, but I just want to ask something to the smart folks here on HN.

In this post, PJ says: "And here's a detail that matters in any copyright infringement litigation: 17\. Google does not receive any payment, fee, royalty, or other remuneration for its contributions to the Android Platform."

Also later a commenter, webster, says:

"The fact that Google does not get any fee for Android is a severe problem. It cuts potential damages immensely."

How does this square with the enormous damages that have been granted to the record labels during file sharing lawsuits? Surely file sharers get no fee for distributing mp3s...

<comment><USER9> Actual damages in copyright can be the profits the infringer made from the infringement or the profits the copyright owner lost due to the infringement, so first of all the potential damages (if there was copyright infringement...which is an allegation that as far as I know no one has even been able to guess what it might be) could be up to what Oracle would sell a license for, which I suspect could be a considerable amount. So, I'm not sure PJ is correct here about the potential damages being cut immensely, at least if Oracle asks for actual damages.

Second (and this is the part that is relevant to file sharing), actual damages can be difficult to calculate. It is often highly speculative how much an infringer profited from an infringement, or how much the copyright holder lost due to the infringement. To deal with this difficulty, US copyright law has a thing called STATUTORY DAMAGES. The plaintiff can elect to ask for statutory damages instead of actual damages, and the court is then allowed to come up with a damage number from a range specified by the statute. That range is from $750 to $30k per infringed work, with the court having discretion to drop the low end to $200 if the defendant was not aware and had no reason to believe they were infringing, or to raise the high end to $150k if the infringement was willful.

All the file sharing lawsuit damage awards have been statutory damages, and have involved many songs. Each song is a separate work, so if the court is nice and goes low ($750) but there were 40 songs, that's $30k. The two most prominent defendants, though, were blatantly guilty, and in one case lied under oath and tried to destroy evidence and tried to frame her kids for the infringement, so the court was not inclined to go for the low end of the statutory damages.

(Note that when the RIAA goes after a file sharer, they usually offer to settle for an amount that is _under_ the minimum they would get from statutory damages, which is why if you are in fact guilty, you should settle).

In the case of Android, it would be likely that there would only be one work infringed (although maybe different libraries are different works, so maybe there are more...), and so even if Oracle got $150k/work, it would not be an amount that would be large for Google. Maybe this is what PJ was thinking of?

<comment><USER10> Copyright owners can try to prove "indirect profits."

EXAMPLE: Some years ago, Frank Music. Corp., owner of the copyright in the musical _Kismet_ , sued the MGM Grand Hotel for using material from the musical in their floor show. The original damage award was a percentage of the ticket sales to the floor show, which didn't amount to that much.

After all the appeals were over and the dust settled, Frank Music Corp. ended up with an award of 2% of MGM Grand's total revenues during the relevant time, as indirect profits arising from the infringement. The rationale was that the floor show was a draw for the casino, the restaurant, the hotel itself, etc.

The appellate court's opinion is at [http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/886/886.F2d.1545.87-...](http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/886/886.F2d.1545.87-6321.87-6257.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Here's to hoping Oracle gets _crushed_. If they don't, it's very bad news for _everyone_ who has anything to do with the Java platform.

<comment><USER12> It will quite possibly be bad news for Android vendors. But by Google's own admission, Android is not Java.

[Insert obligatory smiley: :-) ]

Seriously, Google is one of the big backers of Java and OpenJDK. By suing Google, Oracle risk losing contributors like Josh Bloch and Martin Buchholz. I mean, they've already skipped out on JavaOne.

<comment><USER13> They don't seem to care at all about losing top tech talent.

Cripes! They even wanted to convert James Gosling as a sort of a talking puppet at trade shows.

Your line of reasoning would work, if Oracle was about engineering. Oracle, however, is mostly a sales - and marketing operation with some engineering attached to it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> That was not an aggressive response. It was a routine response, almost a copy/paste of what you'd see from any patent defendant who has decided to not immediately cave.

<comment><USER14> What _would_ an aggressive response look like? Did Google show restraint in any way with this? (Perhaps they could have made some counterclaims for Oracle's harm to their business in spite of the fact that Google doesn't make any money directly off Android?)

I think if this response seems normal, that's because aggressive smack-downs are the appropriate way to deal with patent trolls, and most software patent cases involve a patent troll.

<comment><USER9> It would be a normal response in a non-software patent case, too.

When accused of violating a patent, you generally respond by (1) denying that your product practices the patent, (2) alleging that you have a license that allows you to practice the patent, and (3) alleging that the patent isn't even valid. For the latter you generally allege that it fails pretty much every requirement of a valid patent (invention is obvious, it was not novel, the people on the patent aren't the real inventors, they failed to disclose relevant prior art that they knew about to the patent office, they didn't pay maintenance fees, and anything else that you can think of that is at least remotely plausible).

Basically, all Google is saying is that they aren't going to concede anything Oracle is claiming much beyond that Oracle got their address right, Oracle picked a legally acceptable court to file in, and Oracle appears to own some patents.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I blame James Gosling for a lot of this garbage. The whole stupid dance with Apache and the field of use restrictions from trying to make money on mobile is the cause of all this.

Gosling's stewardship of Java was awful. From EJB to J2ME to JavaFX it was one failed initiative after another. I always thought it was obvious how Sun could make money from Java, sell a JVM with extra enterprise features and tools, keep it simple! They might still be alive if they had.

</comment><comment><USER16> I wish Google well in this conflict, but can someone explain to me why Oracle's former position on open-sourcing the TCKs is relevant to the case? I agree that the somersault makes them "look bad" as the OP says, I just don't understand its specific legal implications.

<comment><USER17> >>These registrations appear to relate to versions of certain Sun Java materials that were released as open-sourced software in 2006 and 2007.

I'm not a lawyer (and even Groklaw goes over my head most of the time), but it seems like this is the crux. If the lawsuit is based entirely around items that are open-sourced, then there's no lawsuit. But there's no real way to tell, since Oracle hasn't specified what exactly is being infringed.

And from a comment below:

>>Oracle wanted Java more open when it worked better for them, now it doesn't. They are allowed to change their minds, aren't they?

Yes, Oracle is perfectly welcome to change it's mind and say "We don't want this open source anymore." However, they can't (I believe) un-open-source things that have already been released. They can remove the license, take down the Java.com downloads, and continue developing Java under a proprietary license, but the whole point of OS is that the community could take their last OS release and fork it themselves.

This also means that a company can't open-source software or development tools, wait until they're implemented in various systems, then turn around and "un-open-source" them and sue for infringement.

<comment><USER18> It's not about un-open sourcing anything. Apache, Oracle _wanted_ Sun to open source the Java testing kit etc. but Sun never did and placed restrictions on usage on mobiles.

So Google is claiming that Oracle is acting hypocritically depending on which side of the aisle it is, but that does not carry any legal weight.

The registrations you talk about in the beginning are to do with copyright claims and have nothing to do with the patent claims.

<comment><USER19> Actually, that does carry legal weight. It's called the doctrine of unclean hands; those who wish equitable relief must themselves act equitably. Acting hypocritically in this case may fall under that doctrine.

<comment><USER6> Patents are a creation of equity? Would have never thought!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> _19\. Although software applications for the Android platform may be written in the Java programming language, the Dalvik bytecode is distinct and different from Java bytecode. The Dalvik VM is not a Java VM._

Wait, all they've made is a phone that runs a VM that Java can compile to? What exactly is Snoracle suing for, the use of Java syntax as a source language?

<comment><USER21> _Wait, all they've made is a phone that runs a VM that Java can compile to? What exactly is Snoracle suing for, the use of Java syntax as a source language?_

Oracle is suing over Google's usage of specific VM technologies, such as JIT compilation, which they have patents for.

<comment><USER22> Convenient links to the patents (most of them hosted by Google, I guess they can't say they didn't know about them):

<http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT6125447>

<http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT6192476>

<http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT5966702>

<http://www.patentgenius.com/patent/7426720.html>

<http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPATRE38104>

<http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT6910205>

<http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT6061520>

Edit: note that <http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT7426720> is the only one not working at "Google Patents," can that be a hint to anything? I don't know.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Morally speaking, Google is on firm ground. _Legally_ speaking, not so much. I'm not a lawyer and I don't like software patents so I hope that I'm mistaken here.

First, Oracle's sudden reversal of course following the takeover is a distraction. Oracle says it were unaware of key facts until after it had bought Sun, like a groom who discovers on his wedding night that the bride had been in an abusive relationship with the best man. Bogus? Maybe, but that's for a court to decide - the claim is plausible enough to justify conducting a trial, rather than dismissing the suit on the mere say-so of Google. Oracle only needs to demonstrate that what they learned after the acquisition altered their view.

That might sound trite, but suppose Sun had accepted Oracle's advice in February 2009 and said 'OK, Java is free to anyone for anything forever, just don't forget how nice we are,' and there was no basis for this suit as a result. If Oracle secretly thought the patents were worth billion$ at the time, why urge Sun to give them away? It was a surprise when Oracle sued Google, not least because nobody expected a patent challenge to Android from Sun. So lifting the licensing restrictions would not have damaged Sun's already-low stock price (about $4) in 2009. If it had, Oracle could have purchased the company for less money.

See, Oracle paid about $7.5bn for Sun and is now suing Google for ~$10bn, and the first reaction is 'they only bought Sun so they could sue Google for $$$.' But if Sun had gone the last mile in making Java open source as Oracle urged them to do, there would be no basis for filing a lawsuit. If Oracle had _defended_ Sun's refusal to OS Java and then bought the company, it'd make sense - they'd have been protecting their intended investment. But Oracle's benefit from a fully open source Java SE would have been...$0. It's not as if Oracle was trying to launch a Java-derived mobile platform of its own, and being obstructed by Sun. To prove Oracle had unclean hands, Google would have to show that Oracle _knew_ Sun would reject Oracle's suggestions and committee vote, and that Oracle was only pretending to support the idea.

On the technical level, Sun never issued a license that would allow the full use of Apache's Harmony on mobile devices. No license = no Java on mobile. You can, perhaps, make something of your own that does the same thing, but as soon as you say the word 'Java' it becomes Sun's business. Before going on, I know Android does not align with the Java SE. I will argue that legally, it shouldn't reference Java _at all_.

Google used some of the Harmony class libraries for Dalvik. That was source code, and not software, but the Harmony license (= the Apache 2.0 license) treats them the same way (see 'Definitions' in <http://harmony.apache.org/license.html>). So using Harmony source code = using Harmony. This license says nothing about mobile devices, but clause 5 acknowledges the precedence of other conditions in other license agreements, saying that 'nothing herein shall supersede or modify the terms of any separate license agreement you may have executed with Licensor regarding such Contributions.' In other words, Sun retains the rights it reserved when it made Java available. Some rights were never licensable.

At the time the Apache license was crafted, the license governing further development of Java was v2.8 of the Sun Community Source License (2001; <http://java.sun.com/javase/6/scsl_6-license.txt>). It makes specific claims, which are not superseded by the Harmony license: the important ones being that you can't use any parts of Java, or even offer a Java-compatible API, for any purposes other than non-commercial research unless you first sign a fee-paying license agreement with Sun. Since then, Sun released a simplified Java Research License (2005, <http://java.net/jrl.csp>) with essentially the same limitations. That's not a problem for Apache, because it's a non-profit organization.

There might be arguments about whether Google should have relied on the terms of the 2001 SCSL or the 2005 JRL when evaluating their rights under the Harmony license, because the earlier one is more explicit about what uses of the tools and technology are permissible. The JRL says simply that it 'is not intended to permit or enable access to the Technology for active consultation as part of creating an independent implementation of the Technology' - <USER2> 'Technology' includes any Java source code ever put out by Sun. The SCSL says you can develop your own stuff from Java for purposes other than research, but at the very least you have to validate what's Java-compatible or not before you deploy it anywhere, using sun's TCK, and you are _not_ allowed to use the TCK for the purposes of building your own compatibility testing software. Also, mobile platform validation is explicitly excluded. Also, here's a non- legalese 2005 note from Sun clarifying what their position was when they released the JRL in 2005: <https://jdk.dev.java.net/javase_ip_issues.html>

Sure, Google are giving away Android, but they are doing so to be competitive in the smartphone market. They even commissioned and sold their own phone to promote the Android platform, and price their advertising services to reflect their brand strength across all internet access platforms. To the extent that Google has a financial interest in uptake of Android, it's commercial activity. The upshot of this is that by offering even a partial Java SE API in Android under authority of the Harmony license, Google has gone way past anything that could be called 'research.'

Google argues that in any case, Dalvik is not a Java VM, and Android is a system for producing Dalvik bytecode, which is _nothing like_ Java bytecode. The obvious response to this is to ask why, then, they're using a subset of the Java SE API in Dalvik. Why have classes called 'Java' and 'Javax' which behave like the Java API does? Why not just start from scratch, rather than touting the possibility of writing code for Android in 'Java'? Let's face it, before this lawsuit began if you went up to any random developer and said 'Quick, what is this Android thing everyone is talking about?' the reply would have been 'Oh, it's a cellphone development platform based on Java.' Why didn't Sun make a fuss about this earlier? Oracle's position seems to be that they should have, and now that they are the new assignees of all Sun's IP, they are moving quickly to enforce the very same rights that Sun's management so carelessly failed to protect.

But, Google says, even if it emulates Java in many respects and incorporates bits of Harmony derived from Java, Dalvik only links to those libraries and linking is explicitly allowed by the Apache license agreement, and does not constitute a 'derivative work.' But that only applies to those parts of Harmony which were created by Apache. It does not confer retroactive rights to the Java SE, or remove the conditions which apply to redistribution of the Java SE - ie that noncommercial use is prohibited without payment of a license fee to Sun. So again, they shouldn't be offering an API that bears a strong resemblance to Sun's work, albeit a partial one. If you had never used Harmony and went straight from JDK to Android, your first thought would be 'oh, looks quite similar to Java SE.' Not permissible, under the license terms.

Everyone has assumed that when they implemented Android on their hardware using the Android SDK, they did so under license from Google; and that Google are in turn authorized to give away Android under the terms of the Apache license, and that Apache are in turn authorized to give away Harmony under the terms of the Java license from Sun. But the grant of rights by Sun specifically excluded deployment of Java SE or any of its parts onto completely new platforms unless a license was first obtained from Sun, and they had never issued any such license despite the urging of other interested parties.

Nor do I think that Google's argument of Dalvik being something fundamentally different because it produces its own bytecode is very strong. In practice, the way it is used is to read in Java source code, spit out some object code, and run it on a VM. The Apache license doesn't distinguish, though; and while the SCSL does allow you to build and distribute your own binaries of things like VMs and compilers (albeit only for research purposes), that same license is the one that specifically limits _any_ kind of reuse on other platforms without an appropriate license...including mobile platforms.

So to wrap up, it seems to me that Google is relying on a certain construction of the SCSL which provides a loophole for them to distribute Dalvik because it is an entirely new product, but the very same license which allows this precludes them from even using the same class names. Referring to the Apache license's exclusion of linked libraries from 'derivative works' is no good, because the same document is pendant on the terms of the underlying agreement between Apache and Sun. Google's argument, when you strip away everything else, appears to contain a scope bug.

<comment><USER4>
         Dalvik only links to those libraries and linking is explicitly allowed by the
         Apache license agreement, and does not constitute a 'derivative work.' But
         that only applies to those parts of Harmony which were created by
         Apache.

Harmony is a clean-room implementation of Java. No parts from Java SE were copied, so licensing terms of Java SE don't apply. There could be licensing terms for Harmony, but that's for the usage of the "Java" trademark, but AFAIK Sun hasn't provided a TCK to Harmony yet.

You also can't copyright API interfaces, so the point that Dalvik works with classes named "java" and "javax" doesn't really hold.

Also note that this lawsuit is about _patents_ \+ unidentified copyright violations (on which Oracle just got bitch-slapped because they haven't identified them, as required by law), it is not about a breach of license / contract.

EDIT

And you know, Android applications are first developed and compiled using Sun's JDK. Only after that a compiler translates JVM bytecode to Dalvik. THAT's WHAT COMPILERS DO.

Are you going to suggest that compilers are illegal now?

<comment><USER24> Sun provided a _patent_ license to OpenJDK/Harmony. That's important. Whether or not any code was used affects _copyright_ violations, not patent issues.

Copy someone's code and you violate copyright.

Two people can independently come up with the exact same algorithm, one of them patents it and the other is in violation. That's just how crazy the patent system is.

Sun's license to OpenJDK was contingent on that JDK not being modified. Oracle's argument is that Google has violated that license so is outside the royalty-free patent license for the OpenJDK, which I hate to admit, is actually a reasonable argument.

That'll be enough to get a trial if Oracle wants one. When I first heard about the lawsuit I considered it an incompetent shakedown to justify the purchase price for Sun. I say "incompetent" because they picked the wrong target thinking Google of all companies would simply roll over and cut Oracle into the Android action.

I hate to admit that because I think Oracle's actions are shortsighted and, well, moronic as Google has done more to further the Java platform than anyone ( _including_ Sun) and I'm opposed to software patents anyway.

<comment><USER4> The patent grant doesn't extend to Harmony because it hasn't passed the TCK (because it contains a fields of use restriction).

You also can't violate a license, if you haven't agreed to one in the first place. This is also important!

Violating a license is different than unknowingly infringing on a patent.

<comment><USER24> > You also can't violate a license, if you haven't agreed to one in the first > place.

Perhaps I chose a misleading word by saying "violating" as it implies only the problems for license holders. The nature of patents however is that if someone has a patent affecting your software you are potentially in violation if you either don't have a license or you do have a license and are in violation of it (which tends to devolve into a contractual dispute).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Of course I don't want Oracle to win, but is this really an aggressive move? The "kitchen sink" approach could be aggressive, but in a way it feels like the "DA throwing every charge they can at a suspect" hoping something sticks.

Also, claiming that the Dalik VM is not a Java VM doesn't seem right.

<comment><USER26> Dalvik doesn't run Java executable code, therefore it isn't a Java VM. If you open up Dalvik up to being a Java VM even through it doesn't run Java code directly then it follows that every CPU and VM is a Java VM.

<comment><USER27> As I understand it, Dalvik bytecodes have basically the same semantics as Java bytecodes, but this is not the case for other VMs or processors. I don't think the question of whether Dalvik is really Java or not is relevant to the Oracle/Google lawsuit, though.

<comment><USER26> Actually, Dalvik is a register-based VM and the Java VM is stack-based -- so they don't have the same semantics.

I agree that it's not really relevant to the lawsuit, but I suspect a lot of VMs (especially the .NET CLR) contain designs covered by Oracle's patents.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> It seems like Google is hoping that Oracle effectively made a mistake in their claim (claiming infringement on something that was released to open source). While this is possible, it seems more likely that Google sucked in some code that it shouldn't have. This is based on my past work with engineers and OS code. I've worked on projects with specific rules about what we use, to only audit and see that these rules were quickly abandoned w/o review.

I have no idea what happened in this case, but I do fear that when you have various rules relating to various pieces of code, engineers often don't pay attention or often simply disregard the rules in the belief that no one will care -- "Sun will never sue us... oh, Oracle bought them... brb, I need to go make some reverts"

<comment><USER29> There are two main bodies of code in question: the VM that Google did, which I'm sure was vetted by their own team, and the Apache Harmony classlib, which is a project that has always had very high standards in terms of what is included - they knew from the get-go that they were operating in a potentially dangerous space.

So this doesn't sound plausible to me.

<comment><USER28> The other psosibility is that Oracle/Sun doesn't know the law or are just lying. Again, I have no clue, but my experience in the space of dealing with open source are lots of violations of various forms. Most innocuous as virtually no one seems to care, but they exist nevertheless.

But maybe Google is really different than most organizations and they actually did a thorough vetting over the lifetime of the project.

<comment><USER29> > my experience in the space of dealing with open source

Could you be more specific? I'm curious, as this is not something that seems familiar to me, but 'open source' is pretty big.

<comment><USER28> Here's one example when I was a consultant doing work on embedded devices, I saw often very flagrant violations of GPL. When I asked what their policy on GPL was it was that GPL was only allowed in these specific modules, but not these other ones. And they had a review process for it.

When I went and reviewed the logs I saw that the review process did happen, but tailed off and then about two years before I began it had completely stopped. Yet I could find new code checked in that GPL'ed.

This particular place was really receptive to my suggestions and actually refactored the code and rewrote some of the code (although I wouldn't call it clean room). But had I not randomly ran across it, they stopped looking at it. Legal and management cared a great deal about this, but the devs on the floor didn't seem to care quite as much. And I'd heard about some that complained that I had apparently come to slow them down by adding extra process.

In any case, this isn't the only example. I think you'd be surprised how much BSD code gets shipped w/o attribution. And I think you'd also be surprised at how much reverse engineering takes place (which is a slightly different issue, but I think related in liberties devs will often take w/o consulting legal).

<comment><USER29> Aha, embedded: that's definitely an area where companies get busted for GPL violations.

Apache Harmony is the other side of the coin from this though: it's an open source project with very strict requirements in terms of contributors: <http://harmony.apache.org/contribution_policy.html>

And I think Google is likely a lot more careful/knowledgeable than some random hardware company trying to ship a product as fast as it possibly can. Also, my guess is that something like Dalvik is not just something you find laying around on the internet...

<comment><USER28> I just read this snippet from Nilay Patel: [http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/05/google-responds-to- oracle...](http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/05/google-responds-to-oracles- android-patent-lawsuit-we-break-it/)

IANAL and at least he is. I'm not really sure what to think from it. In particular these bullet quoted items: "•Sun open-sourced Java Standard Edition under the GPL in 2006 and 2007, but didn't include a patent or copyright license with the code. In order to get that license, developers have to demonstrate compatibility with the Java specification.

•The only way to demonstrate compatibility with the Java specification is to use Sun's Technology Compatibility Kit, or TCK, and Sun / Oracle and Apache have been bickering about the license for the Java TCK, or JCK, for years. (That's putting it lightly, actually. It's been more like a war.)

•The only license Sun ever offered Apache for the JCK included significant "field of use" restrictions, including a restriction on mobile phones."

This actually makes me believe that Oracle and Google both know what they're doing and this ends up really ugly. Can anyone give a second opinion as to if those bullet points are true?

<comment><USER29> * Apache's implementation is a clean room one - the ASF agreed to no such restrictions on the TCK, and did not get a license for it.

* Dalvik, as other people point out above, is not Java. It is its own virtual machine, built from the ground up by Google, so Oracle can't claim copyright on it, but is going after it with patents, which seems like a low blow (we can't compete, so we'll sue).

<comment><USER28> Dalvik seems off the table to me. I suspect Oracle has little case there.

But the Apache stuff seems shadier. It reads like you specifically can't use the Apache stuff for mobile devices due to patent and copyright issues. Clean room implementations don't get you around either of those specific legal issues -- unless I've misunderstood something here.

<comment><USER29> I think you've misunderstood something: Apache never signed anything with Sun. Apache never got to use the TCK, because the ASF didn't accept those terms, and therefore, Apache Harmony can't claim to be an implementation of Java, legally speaking. Copyright doesn't apply because Harmony does not use other people's code. Patents... may or may not apply, but the complaint only goes after Dalvik (Google's VM, not Harmony's) in terms of patents, IIRC.

<comment><USER28> You can copyright API signatures (classes, methods, functions, etc...). I assumed that was what was at issue. Is it not? If it is are you saying that Apache clean roomed the whole thing so there is no interface compatibility or library similarity?

If that's the case then I agree.

<comment><USER29> My understanding is that no, you cannot copyright an API.

<comment><USER28> You can certainly copyright APIs. The Win32 API is copyrighted, for example. Although I did note while just looking this up that there is a disclaimer that the copyright allows others to still use it, if they don't also use the code. No citations are ever given though. I suspect that this has simply become standard practice and never tested in a court of law.

Could it be the case that Oracle is about to actually test this?

<comment><USER30> Win32API is not copyrighted. You can find independently created .h files, if you really want, and they are legal. In WINE or Mingw, for example.

Microsoft used "moving target" tactics to avoid having its APIs cloned.

<comment><USER28> This is what Wikipedia, and a few other sources say, "Although Microsoft's implementation of the Windows API is copyrighted, it is generally accepted due to legal precedents in the United States that other vendors can emulate Windows by providing an identical API (but not an identical implementation in code) without breaching copyright."

I also believe the BCL is copyrighted too. I suspect that large chunks of Java libraries are as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> From the article: "And here's a detail that matters in any copyright infringement litigation: 17. Google does not receive any payment, fee, royalty, or other remuneration for its contributions to the Android Platform."

I don't why this "matters" in copyright infringement litigation except perhaps in calculating damages. However, even in the absence of proven profits by Google on account of the alleged infringement, or losses by Oracle, there can still be statutory damages[1] which, in many cases, could be pretty steep.

[1]: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_damages_for_copyright...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_damages_for_copyright_infringement)

<comment><USER32> The lawsuit is about patents, copyright doesn't apply.

<comment><USER29> The complaint says: "COMPLAINT FOR PATENT AND COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT" or at least this copy does: [http://regmedia.co.uk/2010/08/13/oracle_complaint_against_go...](http://regmedia.co.uk/2010/08/13/oracle_complaint_against_google.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I have always found the discussion of Groklaw posts on Slashdot to be interesting. It's curious that this article has not yet been posted there yet.

</comment><comment><USER34> Finally, Google gets a chance to appear non-evil!

But note: nothing substantive about the patents which are the tricky bit.

</comment><comment><USER35> From what I have read Google forked Apache Harmony which has a field of use restriction that includes mobile phones. They were aware of this restriction but proceeded anyway, correctly assuming that Sun would never sue them. Oracle bought Sun and that backfired.

Now I don't think software patents are valid but Google winning this case won't somehow invalidate software patents. In fact it would probably be better if they lost because it will bring the issue into the light for more people and encourage Google to campaign harder against software patents despite their own large holdings.

<comment><USER36> I don't think that's quite right...

My recollection is that Harmony was a clean-room implementation of Java licensed under the Apache license (which has no field of use restriction). The problem was the Harmony wanted to the 'certified' as Java, which meant that they'd have to pass the Java Technology Compatibility Kit (TCK). The only way Sun would let them run the test was if they included a field of use restriction. Apache said no. Google and Oracle backed Apache in this fight. Up until Oracle bought Sun, that is.

I'm not entirely sure how Harmony has woven itself into this mess, because I was under the impression that the patents in question corresponded to things in the JVM. I believe that Google only uses the Harmony libraries in Android, not the Harmony JVM. So, I'm not sure how helpful this will be specifically to them, except as to portray Oracle as a bad-actor.

It's important to note though, that even as Sun open-sourced Java, it did so under the GPL v2, which doesn't cover patents. Sun always maintained a level of control with Java due to the patents involved, regardless of licensing. It just chose to only force the issue when it came to using Java on phones.

<comment><USER37> I think you are right. Here's what I think the issue is:

1\. Sun invents java.

2\. Sun patents several aspects - including the security model, bytecode, etc.

3\. Sun open sources java and has a patent grant agreement in place if (whatever flavor of ) java passes the TCK.

4\. Sun does not release the TCK as opensource

5\. Apache Harmony does not comply with TCK - some weird stuff that if Harmony uses the TCK, it ceases to be opensource (might be applicable to mobile domain only). This means that it does not enjoy patent grants.

6\. Dalvik uses the Harmony class library, as well as having a similar security model as Java (Patents 6,125,447 and 6,192,476).

So the problem is that, indeed the Dalvik bytecode is different, but that was never part of Oracle's patent claims IMHO. The patent claims are allegedly due to Harmony AS WELL AS other stuff like security models, PACK200 Java compression scheme for DEX, etc.

Side note: there is a Android fork called Sundrop which claims to be a non- infringing Android because it uses the official jvm. I disagree because it does not take care of the other patents.

<comment><USER14> It's not so much that Harmony doesn't comply with the TCK as Harmony wasn't allowed to be tested against the TCK except under Faustian terms: in order to be allowed to test Harmony against the TCK, Apache would have had to make Harmony non-Free.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Marketplace to hire no-code experts - <AUTHOR> https://www.makerpad.co/hire <comment><USER2> I was thinking that this no-code thing was about giving people who can't code the power to make apps. Could you please give an example were a no-code expert would be useful?

<comment><AUTHOR> Sure! Like everything there are levels of experience...

\- you could be setting up an Airtable to run online courses but you want someone to help you level it up \- you may need some help on an advanced automation using Zapier \- you may have starting building sites with Webflow but need someone to give you some pointers for an extra level of polish

<comment><USER3> Sounds cool. What are some example costs? Airtable is pretty basic software. An expert of it can only show you so much you can't figure out fairly quickly or learn from someone who isn't billing themselves an expert which I assume is more of a premium. Nonetheless this should speed things up considerably for a lot of software especially if money is worth a lot less than time.

<comment><AUTHOR> Honestly I'm expecting small payments for a fix (less than $50) but there's been projects for 10k submitted (although these are more complete solutions)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Prediction: makerpad.co will be in next YC batch!

</comment><comment><USER5> How are you making money from the experts?</comment>


Feds Say It's Time to Cut Back on Fluoride in Drinking Water - <AUTHOR> http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2015/04/27/402579949/feds-say-its-time-to-cut-back-on-fluoride-in-drinking-water

<comment><USER2> "The only documented risk of water fluoridation is fluorosis, and it is primarily a cosmetic risk," says Barbara Gooch

Well technically we know that the pineal gland absorbs fluoride more readily than any other part of the body.. but we don't yet know the total consequences of messing with this crucial part of our endocrine system.

I'd much rather see this program discontinued than to err on the side of ignorance.

<comment><USER3> Couldn't you theorize that messing with the natural endocrine system can lead to the rise in feminized men, homosexuality and other gender confusion?

<comment><USER4> Well that phenomenon must go back thousands of years, given the fact that many pre-modern civilizations involved such things.

<comment><USER5> Lead poisoning in the aqueduct system is one theory for the fall of the Roman empire.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. [http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/archive/nurcode.html](http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/archive/nurcode.html)</comment>


Ask HN: How do I tell OS X to use Spotify as standard music app? - <AUTHOR>

I want OS X to launch Spotify and not iTunes when I hit the play button on my keyboard and no media app is open already. <comment><USER2> Alfred can global hotkey system commands. You could try binding that key to `open /Applications/Spotify.app` or something similar.

<http://support.alfredapp.com/tutorials:global-hotkeys>

This probably isn't the best forum for a question like this though, try <http://superuser.com/> if Alfred doesn't work for you.

<comment><USER3> Add to that RemoteBuddy if you have an apple remote:

<http://www.iospirit.com/products/remotebuddy/></comment></comment>


NY Times infographic on MJ's chart performance - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/06/25/arts/0625-jackson-graphic.html

<comment><AUTHOR> I know links about Michael Jackson might not belong here, but nice representation of data is always interesting ...</comment>