Parent does not deserve the flamebait mod. He merely called out the conclusion implied by the summary and sarcastically mentioned that this thread was headed for disaster. I'm not sure what other conclusion he should have reached?
And Java, by the way, is nearly as functional as Javascript.
Java isn't even close to functional. I love the language dearly, but it is incredibly imperative in nature. If you want to create something that looks even remotely functional, you need to dive into reflection (NOT recommended) or start creating single-method classes that implement a specific interface. Both options suck and are nowhere near the power of a true functional language.
The researchers commented on this situation on NPR this morning. Yes, you could potentially see Republicans that way. But the researchers suggested that you could also see Democrats as "lacking in a basic sense of self-preservation."
The researchers went on to say that they don't believe that either label is appropriate. Rather, they hope both sides will use this information to better understand one another.
From my own perspective, I feel that it's also worth pointing out that both sides tend to follow their ideals. It's not like Republicans tend to avoid military service after demanding it, and it's not like Democrats seek military service due to a lack of self-preservation. The two sides merely react to certain stimulus, but the actual psychology of the drive is obviously more complex. Which leads me to my next point.
The researchers suggest that this psychological difference is why it is so difficult to change people's minds in political arguments.
Many of the other researchers interviewed by NPR were skeptical of these findings. Their belief was that the study failed to show that these responses were set biologically and not by environmental stimuli. So in fact, it may be that Republicans are more suspicious of attacks than Democrats due to their environmental training. Which certainly seems more likely than dividing people up into "cowards" and "idiot-savants".
lack of namespaces which makes bigger software systems an inherent problem in this language
Namespaces is an imperative problem. Javascript is a functional language. Think Functional.
It's easy to encapsulate Javascript objects into Java-style Packages with only a slight amount of work. However, I do not recommend that you do this. Most code should be kept out of the namespaces entirely. If you do project code into the browser's default object/scope/namespace (they're all the same thing in Javascript; "var x = 'blah'" will work with "alert(window.x)"), make sure you project only what is necessary to initialize the functional objects.
An excellent post, sir. Much more on target than cylence's attempts.
A pure functional language would be a language where there are no side effects.
This is correct. However, I did not claim that Javascript is a *pure* functional language, only that it is a functional language. If we go by the definition of a pure functional language, then we must discount a long list of functional languages as well. That includes the poster-child for functional programming: LISP
Javascript allows for pure functional programming just like any other functional language. However, it does not enforce the purity of functional code. Something that is a very difficult goal to reach. This combined with the C-Style of the language has the negative effect of encouraging imperative programming. With suitably predictable results. (How many times have we heard, "Javascript sucks!")
This is why I often refer to Javascript as a "LISP-style functional language". The two don't line up exactly, but the foundations of Functional List Processing are present in both.
An interesting aspect of the language's real-world use is that the designers of Javascript's web APIs could have created APIs that force imperative thinking. Yet they didn't. Even for traditionally imperative operations (e.g. networking), the designers of Javascript's web APIs have seen fit to ensure its functional nature through the use of an event system. e.g. I do not read values from XMLHttpRequest, I wait for a functional call.
I personally think it's fascinating that the functional underpinnings of the language have been so well preserved despite the lack of general knowledge about the language. The efforts they are putting into the language will pave the way for more mainstream functional languages in the future.
The purpose of this advertisement is not to carefully interpret the Apple ad, but to override it with their own interpretation.
Except that they just acknowledged their existence. If Apple ignores these ads (which they will because they have no "punch") Microsoft will end up looking petty. And again, Microsoft is drawing attention to Apple's ads. Don't draw attention to your opponent unless he has managed to grab sufficient mind-share to demand a response! Microsoft still has the lead in the market, so there is no way they can "win" back attention they haven't lost. All they can do is continue to lose ground.
Microsoft just failed on an epic scale. They didn't take the time to understand the Apple ads, so now they're lashing back at thin air.
The purpose of John Hodgman was not to "stereotype" PC users. The purpose was to provide a boring image of PCs themselves through the comedy of John Hodgman. The idea was that the more artistic nature of Macs should appeal to users of all walks of life. Microsoft obviously didn't get that.
Mark my words: These ads will preach to the choir (the people who already hate the Mac commercials) but will do nothing to asuage those commericals. If anything, Microsoft has just drawn MORE attention to Apple.
What would you describe as "Functional" then? i.e. What is the key difference between a Functional language and a language that has "Functional Aspects"? Show me the difference you believe is there and I'll show you the Javascript goods.
Oh, and BTW? Academia agrees with me that Javascript is a functional language.
No, I mean it is a true, honest to God, functional language. If you check Wikipedia, for example, you will see it listed as "Multi-paradigm: prototype-based, functional, imperative, scripting".
See, most people look at the C-style syntax and think it means that Javascript is a C-style language. Then they get frustrated when the C-stlye code they write looks like crap. Instead, they should be coding with closures and lambda, much like they would with a LISP program. The result is a far more sophisticated program that performs more work with greater elegance than a C-style equivalent.
people won't be adopting Haskell or similar pure-functional languages any time soon.
Correct-a-mundo. On the Haskell part at least. Javascript is a functional language that has managed to go mainstream. Whether you would call it "pure" or not is open for debate.
That aside, if the guy paid money for the domain name, the Chicago Olympic campaign should at least pay him back for the cost of the domain name (plus interest?).
That's a perfectly valid transaction. The problem appears to be that the guy doesn't want to give it up. Why doesn't he want to give it up? Because he was aiming for exactly this sort of situation back in 2004.
Domains tend to be lost or seized when the owner is shown to have acted in bad faith. Those bad faith laws exist precisely to prevent domain squatting. (Fat lot of good it does.:-/)
McDonald's have a pattern of naming burgers with a Mc-prefix. If I started a domain named 'www.mcchocolatecake.com', and McDonald's started to offer, two years later, a McChocolate Cake, they wouldn't have a right to seize my domain.
Actually, they would have a right. You yourself admitted that the Mc-prefix is a common pattern among McDonald's trademarks. In effect, the "Mc" brand itself is their mark. You have no more right to infringe upon their "Mc" mark than I have a right to create a program called "Microsoft Birdhouse". Both instances would be seen as bad faith and an attempt to hang your agenda off someone else's trademark.
Now if you created a parody site called "mcchocolatecake.com" and testified that you had used the term with the belief that it was so outlandish that McDonald's would never use it AND that any onlooker would see the name as a parody rather than a legitimate name, then you might have a case. But if McDonald's did come out with a McChocolateCake, you might be screwed anyway. It would be up to the ICANN panel to decide.
Looks like someone failed MODDING 101. Could a more experienced MOD be so kind as to remove the Redundant? It looks like a new mod misunderstood Bishop Rook's request to downmod his accidental post.
However, our company does surveys for new product names, all of the ideas we have going into the survey are already registered. If the survey ends up resulting in a pick for one of the existing names we keep it. Those that don't get used are put up for sale, at cost, if no one buys it, we loose the year or two year initial registration fee, thats the cost of doing business.
Such practice is common and altogether prudent. It's not that a company wouldn't have a case if they didn't pre-register the names, it's that they save themselves an expensive battle by paying a little more up front.
Of course, the practice only started because companies ran into exactly that sort of issue. (Especially given that domain names were once very expensive to register.) If they hadn't, I'm sure there would still be plenty of companies that hold off to register.
However, the survey was just an example. Obviously, this fellow found a loophole that no one has considered preemptively defending against yet. I'm sure that (city)(EVERY YEAR KNOWN TO MAN) will be locked out by their respective cities after this debacle. That doesn't help the current situation where this fellow took advantage of common foreknowledge to predict viable domains.
The Mc prefix is also used in Scottish naming conventions, what if someone was selling Scottish chocolate cakes online?
Then they'd have a legitimate argument. If they had a "discussion site" on McDonald's food, (analogous to this situation) they'd be slapped down. Also, a Scottish company cannot expect to successfully market a "McBurger" regardless of how common the "Mc" is in Scottish names. "McBurger" would be confusing with McDonald's existing marks and would have no right to ride their coattails into the market. They'll need to be more original than that. (e.g. Try "McGregor's Burger")
Common patterns are not enforceable trademarks.
This is only true if you can PROVE it's a common pattern. Trademarks are industry-specific. Unless you can show that "Mc" is a common prefix among food stuffs (and not just Scottish names), a judge will be likely to find against you.
There is no "in effect." Trademarks must be registered.
You think so? Then, my good sir, could you please explain the difference between (TM) and (R) markings?
Let me just nip this in the bud right now. From Wikipedia:
The owner of a registered trademark may commence legal proceedings for trademark infringement to prevent unauthorized use of that trademark. However, registration is not required. The owner of a common law trademark may also file suit, but an unregistered mark may be protectable only within the geographical area within which it has been used or in geographical areas into which it may be reasonably expected to expand.
McDonald's have a pattern of naming burgers with a Mc-prefix. If I started a domain named 'www.mcchocolatecake.com', and McDonald's started to offer, two years later, a McChocolate Cake, they wouldn't have a right to seize my domain.
Actually, they would have a right. You yourself admitted that the Mc-prefix is a common pattern among McDonald's trademarks. In effect, the "Mc" brand itself is their mark. You have no more right to infringe upon their "Mc" mark than I have a right to create a program called "Microsoft Birdhouse". Both instances would be seen as bad faith and an attempt to hang your agenda off someone else's trademark.
Now if you created a parody site called "mcchocolatecake.com" and testified that you had used the term with the belief that it was so outlandish that McDonald's would never use it AND that any onlooker would see the name as a parody rather than a legitimate name, then you might have a case. But if McDonald's did come out with a McChocolateCake, you might be screwed anyway. It would be up to the ICANN panel to decide.
And exactly where is this trademark that is infringed by this domain?
According to TFA, "<city> <year>" combos have become a common method of referring to a specific instance of the Olympics. e.g. Syndney 2000, Athens 2004, Beijing 2008, etc. Such naming has all the trappings of a protected mark.
This fellow registered the domains in 2004. Which was AFTER the practice had become commonplace among Olympic cities.
The idea that one can seize a domain that has been owned longer than a given trademark has existed seems downright dangerous, however.
Not necessarily. Let's say I participated in a survey from a company attempting to decide on a new product name. (My wife actually does surveys like this, so it's not far-fetched.) Let's also say that some unscrupulous individual notes all the names, then goes to register ALL of them. The company then chooses a name based on the survey feedback, only to find that every one of their choices has been locked out. Does the company have a right to demand their domain back? (Especially if we're talking about made-up words here.) Do they have a right to demand it back if the person starts a "discussion site" on the upcoming product?
You can see the difficulty.
Nearly the same sort of issue happened here. This MBA speculatively registered a whole bunch of (city)(olympic year).com combinations. Unsurprisingly, he got lucky on one of them. Does that make what he did right? Does it make it right because he added a "discussion site"?
It looks semi-legit. While it's a discussion site on the Olympics, it appears that he intentionally intercepted the domain by registering a bunch of <city><year> combos that happen to match Olympic years. Coincidence? I think not.
Generally speaking, ICANN tends to frown on such speculators. The originating entity has a right to their trademarks. Just because someone is crafty enough to beat you to it doesn't mean they should be rewarded.
This is quite different than someone like MikeRoweSoft.com; a domain registered with the guy's actual name to perform his own business.
Slashdot Mirror
Parent does not deserve the flamebait mod. He merely called out the conclusion implied by the summary and sarcastically mentioned that this thread was headed for disaster. I'm not sure what other conclusion he should have reached?
Java isn't even close to functional. I love the language dearly, but it is incredibly imperative in nature. If you want to create something that looks even remotely functional, you need to dive into reflection (NOT recommended) or start creating single-method classes that implement a specific interface. Both options suck and are nowhere near the power of a true functional language.
The researchers commented on this situation on NPR this morning. Yes, you could potentially see Republicans that way. But the researchers suggested that you could also see Democrats as "lacking in a basic sense of self-preservation."
The researchers went on to say that they don't believe that either label is appropriate. Rather, they hope both sides will use this information to better understand one another.
From my own perspective, I feel that it's also worth pointing out that both sides tend to follow their ideals. It's not like Republicans tend to avoid military service after demanding it, and it's not like Democrats seek military service due to a lack of self-preservation. The two sides merely react to certain stimulus, but the actual psychology of the drive is obviously more complex. Which leads me to my next point.
Many of the other researchers interviewed by NPR were skeptical of these findings. Their belief was that the study failed to show that these responses were set biologically and not by environmental stimuli. So in fact, it may be that Republicans are more suspicious of attacks than Democrats due to their environmental training. Which certainly seems more likely than dividing people up into "cowards" and "idiot-savants".
Namespaces is an imperative problem. Javascript is a functional language. Think Functional.
It's easy to encapsulate Javascript objects into Java-style Packages with only a slight amount of work. However, I do not recommend that you do this. Most code should be kept out of the namespaces entirely. If you do project code into the browser's default object/scope/namespace (they're all the same thing in Javascript; "var x = 'blah'" will work with "alert(window.x)"), make sure you project only what is necessary to initialize the functional objects.
An excellent post, sir. Much more on target than cylence's attempts.
This is correct. However, I did not claim that Javascript is a *pure* functional language, only that it is a functional language. If we go by the definition of a pure functional language, then we must discount a long list of functional languages as well. That includes the poster-child for functional programming: LISP
Javascript allows for pure functional programming just like any other functional language. However, it does not enforce the purity of functional code. Something that is a very difficult goal to reach. This combined with the C-Style of the language has the negative effect of encouraging imperative programming. With suitably predictable results. (How many times have we heard, "Javascript sucks!")
This is why I often refer to Javascript as a "LISP-style functional language". The two don't line up exactly, but the foundations of Functional List Processing are present in both.
An interesting aspect of the language's real-world use is that the designers of Javascript's web APIs could have created APIs that force imperative thinking. Yet they didn't. Even for traditionally imperative operations (e.g. networking), the designers of Javascript's web APIs have seen fit to ensure its functional nature through the use of an event system. e.g. I do not read values from XMLHttpRequest, I wait for a functional call.
I personally think it's fascinating that the functional underpinnings of the language have been so well preserved despite the lack of general knowledge about the language. The efforts they are putting into the language will pave the way for more mainstream functional languages in the future.
Except that they just acknowledged their existence. If Apple ignores these ads (which they will because they have no "punch") Microsoft will end up looking petty. And again, Microsoft is drawing attention to Apple's ads. Don't draw attention to your opponent unless he has managed to grab sufficient mind-share to demand a response! Microsoft still has the lead in the market, so there is no way they can "win" back attention they haven't lost. All they can do is continue to lose ground.
Mod parent up. Too true, too true. :-)
OS X?
Microsoft just failed on an epic scale. They didn't take the time to understand the Apple ads, so now they're lashing back at thin air.
The purpose of John Hodgman was not to "stereotype" PC users. The purpose was to provide a boring image of PCs themselves through the comedy of John Hodgman. The idea was that the more artistic nature of Macs should appeal to users of all walks of life. Microsoft obviously didn't get that.
Mark my words: These ads will preach to the choir (the people who already hate the Mac commercials) but will do nothing to asuage those commericals. If anything, Microsoft has just drawn MORE attention to Apple.
Way to go, Microsoft.
What would you describe as "Functional" then? i.e. What is the key difference between a Functional language and a language that has "Functional Aspects"? Show me the difference you believe is there and I'll show you the Javascript goods.
Oh, and BTW? Academia agrees with me that Javascript is a functional language.
There's a more in-depth article on Javascript's functional capabilities here:
http://www.hunlock.com/blogs/Functional_Javascript
Other stuff I pulled out of Google for your perusing:
http://dankogai.typepad.com/blog/2006/03/lambda_calculus.html
http://math.ucr.edu/~mike/lc2js.html
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/08/01.html
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/java/library/wa-javascript.html
What this all means is that Javascript is the most widely deployed functional language in existence! And that's a fact you can take to the bank.
No, I mean it is a true, honest to God, functional language. If you check Wikipedia, for example, you will see it listed as "Multi-paradigm: prototype-based, functional, imperative, scripting".
See, most people look at the C-style syntax and think it means that Javascript is a C-style language. Then they get frustrated when the C-stlye code they write looks like crap. Instead, they should be coding with closures and lambda, much like they would with a LISP program. The result is a far more sophisticated program that performs more work with greater elegance than a C-style equivalent.
I highly recommend Douglas Crockford's "The JavaScript Programming Language" introduction to the language if you're not familiar with Javascript's functional aspect.
Correct-a-mundo. On the Haskell part at least. Javascript is a functional language that has managed to go mainstream. Whether you would call it "pure" or not is open for debate.
You said, "You can trademark a pattern? I think not. Examples?" I linked to the "Mc-" pattern examples. Q.E.D.
There may be someone here with reading comprehension problems, but I am not it.
This is getting tiresome. Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_legal_cases#Cases_brought_by_McDonald.27s
Satisfied?
That's a perfectly valid transaction. The problem appears to be that the guy doesn't want to give it up. Why doesn't he want to give it up? Because he was aiming for exactly this sort of situation back in 2004.
Domains tend to be lost or seized when the owner is shown to have acted in bad faith. Those bad faith laws exist precisely to prevent domain squatting. (Fat lot of good it does. :-/)
Mod abuse! Here's the text again.
Actually, they would have a right. You yourself admitted that the Mc-prefix is a common pattern among McDonald's trademarks. In effect, the "Mc" brand itself is their mark. You have no more right to infringe upon their "Mc" mark than I have a right to create a program called "Microsoft Birdhouse". Both instances would be seen as bad faith and an attempt to hang your agenda off someone else's trademark.
Now if you created a parody site called "mcchocolatecake.com" and testified that you had used the term with the belief that it was so outlandish that McDonald's would never use it AND that any onlooker would see the name as a parody rather than a legitimate name, then you might have a case. But if McDonald's did come out with a McChocolateCake, you might be screwed anyway. It would be up to the ICANN panel to decide.
Looks like someone failed MODDING 101. Could a more experienced MOD be so kind as to remove the Redundant? It looks like a new mod misunderstood Bishop Rook's request to downmod his accidental post.
Such practice is common and altogether prudent. It's not that a company wouldn't have a case if they didn't pre-register the names, it's that they save themselves an expensive battle by paying a little more up front.
Of course, the practice only started because companies ran into exactly that sort of issue. (Especially given that domain names were once very expensive to register.) If they hadn't, I'm sure there would still be plenty of companies that hold off to register.
However, the survey was just an example. Obviously, this fellow found a loophole that no one has considered preemptively defending against yet. I'm sure that (city)(EVERY YEAR KNOWN TO MAN) will be locked out by their respective cities after this debacle. That doesn't help the current situation where this fellow took advantage of common foreknowledge to predict viable domains.
Then they'd have a legitimate argument. If they had a "discussion site" on McDonald's food, (analogous to this situation) they'd be slapped down. Also, a Scottish company cannot expect to successfully market a "McBurger" regardless of how common the "Mc" is in Scottish names. "McBurger" would be confusing with McDonald's existing marks and would have no right to ride their coattails into the market. They'll need to be more original than that. (e.g. Try "McGregor's Burger")
This is only true if you can PROVE it's a common pattern. Trademarks are industry-specific. Unless you can show that "Mc" is a common prefix among food stuffs (and not just Scottish names), a judge will be likely to find against you.
You think so? Then, my good sir, could you please explain the difference between (TM) and (R) markings?
Let me just nip this in the bud right now. From Wikipedia:
Actually, they would have a right. You yourself admitted that the Mc-prefix is a common pattern among McDonald's trademarks. In effect, the "Mc" brand itself is their mark. You have no more right to infringe upon their "Mc" mark than I have a right to create a program called "Microsoft Birdhouse". Both instances would be seen as bad faith and an attempt to hang your agenda off someone else's trademark.
Now if you created a parody site called "mcchocolatecake.com" and testified that you had used the term with the belief that it was so outlandish that McDonald's would never use it AND that any onlooker would see the name as a parody rather than a legitimate name, then you might have a case. But if McDonald's did come out with a McChocolateCake, you might be screwed anyway. It would be up to the ICANN panel to decide.
According to TFA, "<city> <year>" combos have become a common method of referring to a specific instance of the Olympics. e.g. Syndney 2000, Athens 2004, Beijing 2008, etc. Such naming has all the trappings of a protected mark.
This fellow registered the domains in 2004. Which was AFTER the practice had become commonplace among Olympic cities.
Not necessarily. Let's say I participated in a survey from a company attempting to decide on a new product name. (My wife actually does surveys like this, so it's not far-fetched.) Let's also say that some unscrupulous individual notes all the names, then goes to register ALL of them. The company then chooses a name based on the survey feedback, only to find that every one of their choices has been locked out. Does the company have a right to demand their domain back? (Especially if we're talking about made-up words here.) Do they have a right to demand it back if the person starts a "discussion site" on the upcoming product?
You can see the difficulty.
Nearly the same sort of issue happened here. This MBA speculatively registered a whole bunch of (city)(olympic year).com combinations. Unsurprisingly, he got lucky on one of them. Does that make what he did right? Does it make it right because he added a "discussion site"?
Food for thought, anyway.
It looks semi-legit. While it's a discussion site on the Olympics, it appears that he intentionally intercepted the domain by registering a bunch of <city><year> combos that happen to match Olympic years. Coincidence? I think not.
Generally speaking, ICANN tends to frown on such speculators. The originating entity has a right to their trademarks. Just because someone is crafty enough to beat you to it doesn't mean they should be rewarded.
This is quite different than someone like MikeRoweSoft.com; a domain registered with the guy's actual name to perform his own business.