|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2012 @ 11:03 AM EDT |
Dan Levine's article in Reuters [Article takes you to the
Verge] instead of Dan Levine's article in Reuters.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cjk fossman on Friday, August 10 2012 @ 11:12 AM EDT |
| For the benefit of those who block anonymous comments. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Imaginos1892 on Friday, August 10 2012 @ 11:19 AM EDT |
Post your off topics here. Even those that have only gone
slightly off.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: webster on Friday, August 10 2012 @ 11:44 AM EDT |
.
A debate at this point on the meaning and "significance" of
the evidence indicates that it was not "clear and
convincing" or "a preponderance." Which means that it was
not proven.
For qualitative significance they need Dr. Mitchell to say
that without it the program would change in a significant
way or not run.
Are the files rarely if ever invoked when the Java runs?
They are certainly going to get the Judge to look at this.
.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, August 10 2012 @ 01:11 PM EDT |
| Please include a link to the article you are
referencing. ---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, August 10 2012 @ 01:13 PM EDT |
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2012 @ 11:14 AM EDT |
Now the Google filing makes sense.
Wayne
http://madhatter.ca
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jimrandomh on Saturday, August 11 2012 @ 11:32 AM EDT |
I started to write a comment saying that, as a programmer, I'm not convinced
that rangeCheck was
actually copied, because it's too short to prove that the similarity wasn't
coincidental; there isn't
enough entropy. On looking at it more closely, however, I noticed the mis-spaced
'+' operator in the
line
throw new IllegalArgumentException("fromIndex(" + fromIndex +
") > toIndex(" + toIndex+")");
which is distinctive enough that it's unlikely to be a coincidence. However, if
the missing spaces
around the '+' operator weren't pointed out, I would've estimated the total
remaining entropy of the
function, after the function and dialect are fixed, to be only 7 bits, which is
not enough to prove
copying.
On the other hand, I completely agree that it's de minimus; writing that
function really is a 30-
second task. As for why a copied version ended up there, my guess is that it was
mis-application of a
refactoring tool like Eclipse, with the wrong JDK loaded, such that the author
thought he was moving
a function from one Android class to another but actually moved it from Oracle's
JDK into Android.
Since copy-paste is very strongly discouraged among programmers for practical
(rather than legal)
reasons, this seems more plausible than that the copying was deliberate.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: darkonc on Saturday, August 11 2012 @ 07:17 PM EDT |
| Kearl's note doesn't just represent an abundance of caution. It also provides a
nice benchmark for the other parties to gauge their own submissions against.
Parties can no longer say things like 'I didn't think you meant to include
that in your list!', if Kearl included that in his exemplary statement.
---
Powerful, committed communication. Touching the jewel within each
person and bringing it to life.. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
