No, it runs "different" bytecodes that just happen to have exactly the same semantics as Java bytecodes. Dalvik can correctly execute Java programs, therefore it is a Java VM; everything else is syntactic hair-splitting.
No it can't. You compile something with Oracle's compiler, it won't run on Dalvik. And as far as VM's go, Dalvik is different architecture too -- it's register instead of stack-based.
Look, I can cross-compile Java code to run on
I stopped reading right where it said Dalvik is Java based. It doesn't even run Java byte codes...
Is it a requirement for a tech reporter to be completely clueless? Is not doing basic research part of the job requirement?
Just because Google provides language bindings in Java (and is able to cross-compile the Java class libraries to another runtime), does not make Dalvik runtime "Java-based". It does mean Google is able to leverage existing developer base on their new platform though. Smart move.
What's next, Oracle going to sue GCJ for compiling Java to native?
Thailand has protested to the Australian government over the airing of a documentary critical of the Thai royal family and warned that the broadcast could affect ties between the nations.
"We consider this an issue matter of national security... because the royal family, the monarchy, in our constitution is above politics."
A spokesman for Australia's Department for Foreign Affairs and Trade confirmed that Thai embassy officials had complained about the ABC programme and noted that the Thai monarchy was a much revered institution.
"However, the Australian government does not and cannot control content run by Australian media organisations," he told AFP.
Breaking Thailand's rules on the monarchy have seen prison sentences of up to 18 years handed down, and Australian writer Harry Nicolaides was in 2009 sentenced to three years in jail under the law over a self-published novel.
It is the protestors that are firing live rounds at the police.
You live in some kind of strange alternate reality. Even the government admits the military shot at the protesters. That's why the death toll reads 4 on the side of the military, 16 on the side of the protesters (and unfortunately one Japanese cameraman).
I suggest everyone to read more about the situation that happened a few days ago
Thank you for the suggestion. We are reading. And thankfully, we can do our reading without being brain-washed by a government who feels its ok to censor opposition media, shut down TV and radio stations, and use archaic laws to silence websites and people.
So is it bad that the government doesn't want these assholes spreading their bullshit across the internet?
Yes, it is bad. Very bad. Welcome to democracy.
Thaksin was probably the most corrupt PM in Thailand's history (that was a difficult record to break).
Hardly. He was just as corrupt as any other leader the country has had since 1932. The other totally corrupt guys didn't exile him because he was totally corrupt as well, they exiled him because he didn't agree to be corrupt along with the old power elite.
the instigators (the army) immediately started making movements toward giving up power and restoring democracy. Coups aren't rare in Thailand. They happen about every ten years.
How does this even compute? They restore democracy in order to have a coup once in a decade? A coup is about as anti-democratic as you can get.
Instead, had Thailand *ever* had a real democracy and had the power elite ever be willing to let go of the power in order to establish a strong democratic foundation in the country, the current mess could be dealt with less violence and censorship.
It is the military and the power elite behind yellow shirts who do not want democracy in Thailand. As the yellow shirt leader said: "representative democracy is not suitable for Thailand."
The straw that broke the camel's bank was when Thaksin started claiming himself to be equal to the king, which upset a lot of people.
Including the monarchs. Mostly.
And they do wield *considerable* power in the country. The $35 Billion of wealth they directly or indirectly control in the country alone is a testament to that. You don't have that amount of wealth within your fingertips and not have power. The couple of billion Thaksin filled his own pockets with is chump change compared to the royals. They *are* the wealthiest monarchy in the entire world, after all. Any threat to that establishment will quickly land you in jail or in exile.
He also calls for the removal of the King by whatever means necessary (He uses the phrase "Amart" in order to be obtuse and not name names, but everyone knows who he's talking about).
For good reason. The royalty is a powerful force behind the business and military elite and are an obstacle to democracy in the country.
It's like Tony Blair calling for the removal of the Queen. She's got no power. She's just a figurehead. What's the point?
This is a very naive statement. Hard to believe you've spent any time in Thailand at all. Or you didn't follow the politics and how the elite operates very closely.
The summary also mentions lese-majeste, and claims that it's being (ab)used often. It's not.
Lese majeste is *only* used for abuse. It has no other purpose.
2) The government is currently a democrat government which isn't in anyway related to the yellow shirt's political party
Not in any way related to yellow shirts, you say? Wikipedia certainly disagrees, so maybe you have some alternative sources that proves these statements from Wikipedia to be incorrect:
In the 2008-2009 Thai political crisis, several members of the People's Alliance for Democracy or PAD, became the [Democratic] party's members. [..] The PAD finally declared that the only person they would accept as Premier was Abhisit. [current Prime Minister] Abhisit voiced displeasure at sieges, but did not stop his deputies from their roles in the PAD [yellow shirts].
Abhisit promised to enforce the rule of law and prosecute the 21 Peoples Alliance for Democracy leaders who were responsible for seizing Don Muang and Suvarnabhumi Airports. As of February 2010, arrest warrants had not been issued for the airport seizures. On 24 February 2010, government prosecutors deferred a decision for the 8th time to decide whether to indict the nine leaders of the PAD over the 7-month long seizure of Government House. The prosecutors claimed that they could not make the decision because the PAD leaders "were busy in other provinces" at the time.
Key appointments in Abhisit's government included PAD leader [yellow shirt leader] Kasit Piromya as Foreign Minister
Maybe your propaganda works in Thailand, but the Internet is not censored for the rest of us.
It's clear they weren't shot by the army, because their assault rifles wouldn't have done that.
However, their M107 sniper rifles certainly will.
The shots can be seen in the night from this video on the YouTube. They are coming from the top of the building where the army had set up their operational headquarters.
It is probably not far fetched to conclude that the military would not have allowed access to the protesters, or anyone else, to operate on top of their heads or let third party snipers operate there with impunity.
French media also report seeing several bodies at the morgue where bullet entry wounds were almost perfectly square in the middle of the victims' foreheads implying expert, military-trained snipers at work.
there really is rampant misinformation being spread.
The main thing that's being contended right now is whether or not the Thai army troops fired live rounds (rather than rubber ones) into the red-shirt protesters (who are unarmed), thus being the cause of the deaths. Most of the videos claim to prove that they are, but there is absolutely no evidence in *any* of the videos that this is the case.
There's no contention on this point anymore. While the government initially attempted to deny this fact, the several eye witness reports and reports from international media (including video) has forced the Thai government to admit the armed forces *did* shoot live ammunition at the protesters. This is reported now even by Thai mainstream media.