skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Inadvertent similarity can still be copyright infringement.

No, it can't. Copyright violation requires an actual copy or derivative work, not independent works that have coincidental similarity.

> Sam Smith's "Stay with Me" is a good recent example.

Its an example of something where one party claimed copyright infringement, the other party claimed inadvertent similarity, and the facts were never resolved because the two parties reached an undisclosed settlement.

It is not an example of something both actually being copyright infringement while also actually being inadvertent similarity.
Microsoft choose to sell it all today?
Would this be enough though? As I understand it the issue is that Dalvik implements large portions of the Java API so that developers can write Java and run on Android without Android actually providing a Java VM. So introducing a new language to run on the same VM doesn't work. If anything it reinforces how similar Dalvik is to the JVM.

And that's what's really terrible about this, because before you could provide a clean-room reverse-engineered implementation of something and that would be OK. If I'm understanding this decision correctly, you can't do that anymore; if this were the law 40 years ago then there would never have been an "IBM Compatible" and who knows what consumer computing would look like today.
Specifically the district court. The case made it to a federal appeals court, which ruled that APIs are copyrightable (the district court had ruled they were not), and then remanded* the case back to the district court to decide if Google's fair use defense was valid. Google appealed the federal court decision to the Supreme Court, which decided to not hear the case.

*Appeals courts in the United States do not rule on the facts of a particular case; they only decide if the lower courts properly applied the law. This doctrine is either by law or tradition, depending on the particular appeals court. When an appeals court overturns a legal decision made by a lower court, it typically remands the case back to the lower court to clarify any facts necessary to resolve the case.
Expressing numerical calculations as code,specifically. I was hoping for something to do with category theory.
But a poster above pointed out we (US, via Congress) aren't even willing to spend ~$3B hardening the power grid. That seems like a pretty low ball number; I'd imagine shielding just the things you mentioned would cost at least that much.
In which direction do you mean? Also, I'm not sure what do you mean by "you have to write it manually", nor why do you have to support new and all clients explicitly. Care to elaborate?
Its value is a lot more than 50 cents when you've been hauling a baby through airports, sat on the tarmac because of weather, and didn't have time to grab a scrap of food yourself.
we bribe our way to win contracts, so the CIA gets the proof then blackmails (the Saudis) [...] the UK is bribing every government it can find

Your comment illuminates things somewhat - at the top end of the international business food-chain there is no real free-market. We can talk about free-markets when discussing small, medium and even large domestic sized businesses. But when we think about integrated circuits, aircraft, shipping, consulting engineering, infrastructure etc, it's about discretion when lobbying to get the winning the bid, discretion in stealing key technologies, and discretion in manipulating the market.

My first instinct was to suggest that encryption is the magic bullet for having a real free market at the top end - but that doesn't stop bribery. In the one hand, we need to protect innovative businesses from having their intellectual property stolen and handed to the incumbent, in the other we need to shine a light on the corruption that pervades everything from soccer to software contracts.

I'm not sure what can be done beyond what you suggest at the end of your post: if the CIA spent the next year uploading to their web site phone taps of public officials taking bribes, international corruption would end by 2017.

Time for the spies to become Wikileaks? The reason they won't do this is because every side has nasty secrets to hide.
I think you have this mixed-up with the story where a react developer updates 1 component on the first render, 2 components on the second, 4 components on the third, 8 on the fourth, and so on, until he's rendered a whole chess board.
The model "never work for free" doesn't capture that nuance, which is the whole point of flowcharts like the linked one :-p
> Dark matter and dark energy is just a symptom of the standard model of physics being incorrect.

Possibly, and if there was a better model -- one that was as good at predicting/explaining the observed effects for which the standard model works and did not require invoking dark matter and/or dark energy, the standard model would be dropped in a heartbeat. But right now the standard model + dark matter + dark energy is what works best, of the models that have been presented, at modeling what is actually observed in our universe. So it survives. For now.

Whether it will be resolved by an as-yet-unproposed tweak to the basic model or finding out that "dark matter" and "dark energy" are real things is yet to be seen.
Thanks. Given that the Oort cloud is very sparse and we can't see it, and we can't (optically) see even the largest planets on other stars, why would we expect to be able to see it?
As the article explains, it grew to this size under very favorable circumstances: forest fires keep burning down competing conifers, and a shift in climate some 10,000 years ago made it so separate aspens couldn't really flourish.

Also in the article it mentions other clonal groups in Utah and elsewhere.
Wolfram's ego ++
> and up to a decade for full recovery.

Do you have any idea what that would look like?

Are we talking "back to our standard of living" or are we talking about "recouping from lost economic activity / damage expenses"?
Sure, my point is, there is no room for confusion whatsoever with 'metric ton' or 'metric tonne', if you prefer.
Valid point. Although if I'm a hospital administrator and give X dollars for disaster preparedness I would spend that money on something that has a higher likelihood of saving lives than solar storm preparedness. That is the problem with these incredibly rare but highly destructive events. Do you spend $1 million to definitely save 10 lives or do you spend that $1 million on something which has the 0.01% chance of saving 100,000 lives?
I don't think those who "understand the issue" must necessarily agree with the lower court. I've been coding since I was 13 and I agree with the Fed. Cir. here. The concrete Java declarations that make up an API are a protectable work of authorship. The abstract operations they describe are not.

E.g. POSIX C headers are protectable. But Lisp FFI declarations that compile down to the same ABI do not infringe because they targets the unprotectable method of operation, and do not copy the protectable textual description of those operations.

I think a lot of coders want the lower court to be right for pragmatic reasons. I totally appreciate those pragmatic arguments, but they're not based on having a better technical understanding of the issue.
Which people? LLVM assembly declarations are much more lower level and less accessible to developers than source code APIs. While there is a relationship between the two it's apples and oranges.
Ping me, happy to consult for reasonable levels of work.

Email in profile.
People who are encountering this for the first time might want to look at

http://www.thoughtcrime.org/software/sslstrip/

for some of the motivation!
Assuming you're asking about

int *f; *f = 2;

The statement,

*f = 2;

says "dereference f to get a location; set the contents of that location to 2". "Set f to the location of 2" would be spelled

f = &2;

This is partly a matter of the difference between assignment and definition(/equality).

The first of these is invalid C (undefined behavior) because it uses a value (the contents of f) before initialization.

The second is invalid C (compile error) because 2 is not an l-value (that is, it does not have a location).

Edited to add: I will note that I don't think there is any reason

*f = 2;

couldn't mean to give f the addess of 2, as by analogy to structural pattern matching, but that the syntax is already taken for something else.
Clicked this expecting to read about some crazy data structure.

I was wrong, but not disappointed.
OT: If you're ever in Auckland, NZ or Vancouver, CA let me know. I'd like to buy you a beer.
I think it should be a rule for real-life. I've found the less negative my thoughts, the better my general outlook on life.
How far does this get without "Meterpreter session with SYSTEM privileges".

If this is required for the exploit, then this seems like a case of being on the other side of the airtight hatch. [0][1]

[0] - http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2014/07/04/10539...

[1] - http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2007/08/07/42687...
One doesn't have to like your argument to agree. If you believe in the market you believe in self-interest, and a state has a lot of that. Over time entities that don't fight to survive die, and economics are just as capable as force of threatening our safety, or at least our hegemony.

I may not be a fan of what the NSA is doing, but at the end of the day, I'm happy to hold an American passport.
> It seems the terrible performance of the STL can be explained by std::string: this thing hits the general purpose allocator every time a new string is constructed. In this benchmark, that means every time we insert a string, possibly more. Not good for such an inner loop. There are ways to speed things up, but that would complicate the code, and defeat the purpose of leaning on the standard library.

It's actually reasonably easy to avoid the unnecessary copying.

Something like this would do (use a string as the buffer, pass it by reference, then use `try_emplace`). Also, it should probably be using the same hash function as your C code:

#include <cstdint>
#include <fstream>
#include <string>
#include <unordered_map>

class Intern_pool
{
struct fvn_hash
{
// FVN-1a hash -- http://isthe.com/chongo/tech/comp/fnv/
std::size_t operator()(const std::string& s) const
{
std::size_t hash = 2166136261; // offset basis (32 bits)
for (auto c : s)
{
hash ^= c; // xor
hash *= 16777619; // prime (32 bits)
}

return hash;
}
};

std::unordered_map<std::string, std::uint32_t, fvn_hash> map;
std::uint32_t next = 0;

public:
std::uint32_t add(const std::string& s)
{
auto r = map.try_emplace(s, next);
if (r.second)
{
++next;
}

return r.first->second;
}
};

int main(int argc, const char* argv[])
{
for (int i = 1; i < argc; ++i)
{
std::ifstream file(argv[i]);

Intern_pool intern_pool;

std::string line;
while (std::getline(file, line))
{
intern_pool.add(line);
}
}

return 0;
}
Hey @dang and @altman: if you two are remotely serious about trying to make HN a decent place, then you need to ban this shit and ensure that anybody who upvoted it can never vote again.

That's not a joke.

I get that you two tend to ban only people who are personally rude, but sophistifunk was just INCREDIBLY rude to anybody who is an essentially decent human being. Ridiculously rude. Unforgivably rude.

HN used to be awesome. It was so fucking good. It wasn't a place where people wrote snarky political shit, it was a place where people who got shit done came to learn from other people who got shit done... and look what it's sunk to. Now it's just some asshole shitting on people who think that malaria is more serious than Uber.

If you can't recognizing that Sophistifunk's comment is a perfect embodiment of HN's decline in quality, you are fucking blind.

HN sucks and it is because the two of you refuse to do anything when people like Sophistifunk decide to be outrageously disgusting assholes.
I'm gonna guess that Google or Bing over AOL's dialup is still awful.
Hasn't the US been in it for the last 13 years already?
Ask HN: How to promote an open source project?
I started working on this python app a couple of days back "GITHUB WITHIN THE CLI" https://github.com/harshasrinivas/cli-github
and the response seems to be pretty good. I got 25 stars in the last one day alone. As of now, I've been listed under "Trending Python Developers" and my repo has been listed under "Trending python projects".
Now I am thinking how to promote my repo so that it could reach a large audience.
If it's your mom then yes, you should do it for free.
Is Your Competition Hacking You?
I can't name a consumer technology category that the US was sitting at the top of in 2000.
OP is complaining about companies gathering data to better target you with relevant ads and in the same breath is complaining that his ads aren't targeted enough.

You can't have it both ways. I would say that a good portion of the ads I see are surprisingly relevant, but I might be biased because as a marketer, the people targeting me are the best marketers out there.
Show: Ceremony: Love is Love, using our app to capture some moments around DOMA
This is their first year project...
Don't Believe in Evolution? Try Thinking Harder
Considering so many companies whole business model is based on personal data, this not a surprise. Seriously, how could Uber be valued so high without every customers personal info being sold off to the highest bidder.
OT: Is this what HN spam looks like? Also, your jQuery is broken.
The ruling says that APIs are copyrightable. It does not say that Google is infringing, yet -- the court has yet to rule on whether or not Google's use of the Java APIs falls under a fair use exception. The argument being advanced, as I understand it, is that Google's use of the APIs does not qualify for fair use because it was not being used to create an implementation of the JVM, but because it was being used to create a different runtime (Dalvik) which uses some of the Java APIs but is NOT an attempt to be compatible with the JVM. So it is possible to rule that Google infringed upon Oracle's copyrights without ruling that something like the IBM-compatible PC infringing.
What exactly were these 'problems' ?
Interesting, does that mean there is not enough microwave or radio emission out there to signal a significant amount of dust/gas? The original article mentions this a bit, but I don't understand completely what he is saying since the graphs aren't given much explanation.
> Google appealed the federal court decision to the Supreme Court

The appeals court decision -- both the district court and the appeals court are federal courts.

> Appeals courts in the United States do not rule on the facts of a particular case

That's not always true; matters of fact can be appealed, and there are different standards of review on appeal for different kinds of fact question, however, appeals courts generally prefer not to reach fact questions, particularly if the appeal was over a question of law and not specifically on the fact question, and appeals courts generally do not answer questions -- particularly fact or mixed fact/law questions -- that have not been addressed by the court below, as is often the case where the appeals court reverses a finding of law of the lower court, which then makes relevant a fact question that the lower court did not answer because it would have been irrelevant under the lower court's view of the law.
I find it interesting that artifacts like these towers can see so many lifetimes and incarnations. It's almost as if one incarnation stands until opposition to change is overwhelmed and a new incarnation can be created.
I recall that being a limiting factor 3-4 years ago when I was working with RTMP & P2P/RTMFP, but in mid 2015? I thought HTML5 was ready for live video... Reading now about Media Source Extensions (I just discovered the API) I guess we're finally around the corner... =)

https://w3c.github.io/media-source/
Pure JavaScript - Mobile Leveling Tool
“vnc-roulette” randomly connects to no-auth vnc server via ws://
Better count bribes in there too. Not trying to be smug, but this is the world we live in.
Beyond Containers: Agility and Security in Docker Delivery
We'd be talking replacing huge parts of our infrastructure, cabling, power grid and large amounts of anything with chips in.

The currents induced in the telegraph lines where so great they melted components in the offices.

You'd be looking at replacing a big chunk of what's in space, GPS and similar would be heavily affected if not knocked out entirely.

Industrial plants and factories would be wrecked, production would be heavily hit, wide spread fires the works.

It would be catastrophic.
Microsoft's fiscal year ends tomorrow, so it looks like they're balancing things out.
I think it's also important to note that Macsyma (or atleast Maxima) has a lot of cruft in the code. I actually like Weyl better, even if it hasn't seen active development in ~2 decades.

P.S: Maxima actually uses a list-of-lists to represent a matrix.
If I understand what you are doing, you are creating a data record for an event, and you want to make a quality assessment automatically for each event?

For one thing you need automated tests that tell you if an invariant is broken. You'll need to be able to express some conditions manually, for instance, if the downstream people have a problem when "Y" happens and "Y" can be precisely specified, this is no problem.

Get in touch with me off line if you want to know more.
"Tilt opposite of traffic" protocol. Yes, it has held true regardless of which country or where I biked, regardless of complexity of the intersection or how crowded the area was with other cyclists and pedestrians. Your immediate side needs to be vacant and you need to have a general awareness of your surroundings (which is irrelevant to your speed, you should have a general awareness of your surrounding whether you are going 5km or 20km).

You brought up pedestrians and "more complex intersections than canyon roads". I brought up examples of streets I've cycled on that weren't a canyon road and were packed with pedestrians.

You mentioned that (1) I had never learned how to bike and (2) That town/city intersections greatly differ from canyon roads.

I demonstrated (1) to be false and asserted that I continue to bike to this day. My mental model of what it is like to stop is still fresh, not 10 years outdated. My argument is that (2) is false, the only difference between the two is the acceptable safe speed of travel; hence the speed limit reference.

Braking (and the "difficulty of doing so" being even a "slight problem") is bullshit. That's my assertion after nearly two decades of biking. It's a slight inconvenience that the cyclist should respect laws that are in place to prevent them from being hit by a car or prevent them plowing into a pedestrian/other cyclist. But because of laziness or entitlement they choose to ignore these laws and don't brake where and when they should.

There is a reason why cyclists are perceived as "entitled pricks". It's because, as a whole, they generally act like entitled pricks and then try to explain away why they act so entitled.

I've approached intersections where a pedestrian can walk in front of me from behind a bush. I exercise caution and slow my speed as I approach; such that in the event a pedestrians walks in front of me at the last moment I can brake in time to avoid hitting them. I've had to bike on a single-width bi-directional street where I have to avoid cars turning in blind T-intersections and avoid getting in the way of other pedestrians and cyclists. Intersections where my only knowledge of upcoming potential hazards comes from an intersection mirror [0] 15 meters ahead.

None of these scenarios change the difficult of coming to a safe and complete stop when exercising one's best judgement to maintain a reasonable and safe speed. If one isn't going "120 in the 40" there is no reason why they cannot come to a safe and complete stop.

[0] http://www.thejapanfaq.com/mirror.jpg
I think that semi-enforcing a Series title and automatically adding an Episode number would help greatly.

As long as it had sensible defaults, and was easy enough to change, I think it would make everyone's life a bit easier.
> Google can still win this on fair use.

And, even if they lose on fair use, they can appeal the final ruling, including on the question here. There were arguments (including from the Solicitor General) that the Supreme Court should not take this case because the fair use question had not yet been addressed, so its perhaps premature to read into it whether the Supreme Court would take this question up, or how it would rule if it did, were the case otherwise finalized in the lower courts.
Yeah you can do that too ;)

To be honest, haven't really had this be a massive issue up to this point, it has happened a couple of times, but not very often.
And I lived on/ran a datacenter from one of Churchill's anti-aircraft castles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand
this is true, but will always be true for every court case. by definition, cases that reach the Supreme Court are those that are the most difficult to decide; if one side would/should clearly win, then the parties would virtually always settle much earlier or even avoid court in the first place.
Which is why they should have advertised something like that. This is related to Doom only in that the music and textures are the same. I'll forgive a little negativity if it comes from someone correcting a dishonestly titled article/submission.
Out of curiosity (and as an exercise), what if Google decided to convert all the Java code and APIs to Scala (assuming they had permission from Typesafe)? Would that still be infringement considering they are using the JVM (Dalvik or ART) but not actual Java code? Doesn't even Scala use (or transcompile to) Java code which could be infringement?
Yes, on each side
So are they claiming that it infringes copyright if your implementation is a superset or a subset of the original implementation, but if it is an exact implementation, then it's not copyright infringement?

How would that work with (e.g.) beta versions of something that was aiming for 100% compatibility, but had not achieved it yet? Are you prevented from releasing until you reach 100% compatibility?

Does this prevent MS-style "embrace, extend, extinguish?"
It's a common misconception, but Doom uses a BSP-tree based renderer, not raycasting.
Yes, it was copied by the original author that wrote it back when he was employed at Sun. Additionally, those 9 insignificant lines were irrelevant to the case. The fact that it was even presented showed how desperate Oracle was.
An example of a startup doing work for the developing world is Wave, focusing on helping people send remittances to family in west Africa.

http://www.sendwave.com/
> E.g. POSIX C headers are protectable. But Lisp FFI declarations that compile down to the same ABI do not infringe

This distinction does have a certain clarity to it, but isn't there a certain sense in which there's "only one way" to describe an API for a given language? "int foo(int a, int b)" is hard to write another way; perhaps I can rename the parameters.

(Your Lisp FFI example sidesteps this issue because API declarations in different languages will, of course, look different.)

In other words, I think there may be an "information content" argument. If the abstract operations are not copyrightable, and there is only one obvious way to write down the API's function prototypes in (e.g.) Java or C, does the source code really carry additional copyrightable value?
That's the problem. Someone made a nice set of "programming koans" that were (koans + exercises). But, that has spawned new "programming koans" that are just a set of (exercises) with no koans. Koans are supposed to involve practice [0]. But, does practicing a set of (koans + exercises - koans) have koan-nature? ;)

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C5%8Dan