...which is fine of course, as long as the categories are within the trademark's office own namespace - budweiser.biere.tm.be or something.
My point was simply that different trademarks offices would have different categories, so both the office (tm.be) and the category (biere) have to appear.
Close, but you're just pushing back the problem from a naming of sites to a naming of categories.
By all means have the (US) trademark registry as a subdomain as you suggest, then allow one or more top level domains (i.e. administrations) to incorporate it as they see fit. In the UK we have our own trademark registry where "Budweiser", for example, can refer to beer as well as to a similar beverage made from fermented rice.
If "computer science has the useful concept of namespaces", it of course also has the concept of name administrations to go with them.
Faced with the problem of different interpretations of "truth.com" and "beauty.com", formally there is no realistic way of managing them under a single administration to the satisfaction of all.
The article is confused about what it is proposing, suggesting both to "loosen the cords" and to enforce "truthfulness and authenticity". This is nonsense.
What the Internet needs is a way of setting up trust relationships between users and naming administrations (and between naming administrations themselves). This could be bolted onto the current system by having a wide variety of top-level names that denote the administrations, just as with the country names. Administrations would then be free to borrow name information from each other so the name domains would not really be exclusive.
There were a couple of annoying companies that attempted to introduce a system like this by modifying the browser's name lookup mechanism (Real Names was one). These were annoying because they attempted to hide what was going on (appropriating the regular DNS system) but the underlying principle is sound, and indeed inevitable.
(Useful semi-formal papers on naming are hard to come by - I've been using this 1993 one by Rob van der Linden, which despite being surprisingly prescient must have been superseded by something more web-age by now).
Really? I would be interested in your perception of the relative investment in Java-on-Linux vs. C Sharp-on-Linux, because my impression from inside corporates is that Java is the main driver for adopting Linux in the organization whereas C Sharp / Mono is nowhere, and I mean nowhere.
The prospect of C Sharp / Mono winning from this position is remote to say the least.
But when Microsoft's "source" is Dotnet a whole class of security vulnerabilities will be eliminated that could still be latent in Linux or Linux C/C++ applications.
Also Dotnet gives MS the kind of integrated security environment that is not even on the horizon for Linux.
So let's not be too complacent here - Dotnet will increase MS's agility and Linux will have no coherent response, right now all we have is a bunch of disparate "platform" initiatives. Although by a vast margin the greatest investment is for the Java platform on Linux, in general this fact has yet to be recognised in terms of any strategic decisions for the OS and associated applications.
I think it was the old Spitting Image show that dressed the Spock puppet up as Hamlet (to spoof Nimoy's aspirations) and had him intoning "To be, or not to be... that... that is illogical Captain!"
Once you've decided on the abstractions to represent (devices, file systems, My Documents etc.) and how they are modelled you can then worry about L&F.
The main problem with the Windows GUI is the chaotic nature of the abstractions chosen, not the L&F.
Alas, we Brits can claim no credit as we were speaking Brythonic at the time (a Celtic tongue) but those pesky Angles, Saxons etc. insisted on bringing a dose of W Germanic with them.
There might be a statue, and of recent vintage (1992), but Harris was a controversial figure even during the conflict with many questions in Parliament and from the church about the area bombing strategy.
Here's a letter Churchill nearly sent at the time, saying that he wanted no more "wanton destruction". Not that his position is exactly uncontroversial either, hence this National Archives topic.
PS Regarding the church position, my father remembers reading comment in newspapers from a Canon Bell condemning area bombing, but surprisingly there doesn't seem to be any record of this books I've read, or on the net.
Right on, Fischertechnik is great, highly recommended for a wide age range (6 up). When it appeared back in the 70s it was a huge advance over old Lego and Meccano / Erector Set and I would think it holds up very well today against the likes of Knex and Mindstorms. The basics of wheels, gears, joints and axles and are very mechanically solid - like Meccano, unlike Lego - but very easy to snap together. The electronics always appeared very modern - all fine wires, quiet motors and tiny lights so I'm not surprised to hear that they've responded to the digital age in style.
Might be worth pointing out that this is of fairly academic interest to the largest Linux users and investors since major business applications are no longer being written in C or C++.
Although it generally fails to register in Slashdot land, Java and Dotnet have happened and the dynamics of software development will ensure that there is zero chance of going back to pre-VM platforms.
The most likely way forward is that both QT and GTK2 API layers (but not necessarily the GUIs themselves) will become irrelevant. The well-meaning advocates of GUI unification are therefore in danger of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory if they fail to embrace and exploit this fundamental change.
Unfortunately you're in the wrong forum if you want to help determine actual requirements and priorities.
This audience will still be arguing about C / C++ GUI systems when the rest of the world has moved on (to Java, Dotnet and their successors). I don't pretend to understand why this is, but after three years of putting the case for VMs as a fundamental part of Linux, I've discovered that responses to debates here in/. can be categorized roughly as follows:
50% join in thinking that the issue is about language and syntax
45% profess no interest on the grounds that C/C++ can do everything
5% of respondees "get it" and recognise that this is a problem to be addressed but have widely divergent views on the way forward
Maybe try the Parrot, DotGNU or Kaffe mailing lists?
Re:Minor factual error: no "darkside" of the moon
on
The Case for the Moon
·
· Score: 2
Matter of a fact, it's all dark.
Re:Not the right product for Linux
on
Kylix in Limbo
·
· Score: 1
But the investment in Java on Linux is approximately 100000 times that of Mono on Linux, so you might consider doing the guy a favor and propose that.
You do realize that Linux is getting into corporates on the back of Java and not because it's got kinda-neat-desktop-themes?
Go ahead, explain exactly how he will benefit from some some half-assed Microsoft wannabe that programmers don't use and managers won't touch.
it seems that if the EULA is valid, the GPL is valid; and vice-versa
Yeuuchh. Let's not go there.
EULAs attempt to constrain expectations generated by having purchased a product: it's yours but you can't disassemble it etc.
The GPL, on the other hand, represents the sole means by which this source code came into your possession. It's therefore not a modification or extension of any more fundamental entitlement - if there was no GPL then you wouldn't have the code, period, whereas plenty of software has been sold and used without EULAs.
Meanwhile, the Linux user community will carry on using Java; the investment in Java-on-Linux being at least four orders of magnitude greater than Mono-on-Linux and the greatest single factor in establishing Linux in at the core of enterprise IT.
Slashdot Mirror
Next thing you know they'll be saying how .NET and C# are the greatest thing ever.
...which is fine of course, as long as the categories are within the trademark's office own namespace - budweiser.biere.tm.be or something.
My point was simply that different trademarks offices would have different categories, so both the office (tm.be) and the category (biere) have to appear.
Close, but you're just pushing back the problem from a naming of sites to a naming of categories.
By all means have the (US) trademark registry as a subdomain as you suggest, then allow one or more top level domains (i.e. administrations) to incorporate it as they see fit. In the UK we have our own trademark registry where "Budweiser", for example, can refer to beer as well as to a similar beverage made from fermented rice.
If "computer science has the useful concept of namespaces", it of course also has the concept of name administrations to go with them.
Faced with the problem of different interpretations of "truth.com" and "beauty.com", formally there is no realistic way of managing them under a single administration to the satisfaction of all.
The article is confused about what it is proposing, suggesting both to "loosen the cords" and to enforce "truthfulness and authenticity". This is nonsense.
What the Internet needs is a way of setting up trust relationships between users and naming administrations (and between naming administrations themselves). This could be bolted onto the current system by having a wide variety of top-level names that denote the administrations, just as with the country names. Administrations would then be free to borrow name information from each other so the name domains would not really be exclusive.
There were a couple of annoying companies that attempted to introduce a system like this by modifying the browser's name lookup mechanism (Real Names was one). These were annoying because they attempted to hide what was going on (appropriating the regular DNS system) but the underlying principle is sound, and indeed inevitable.
(Useful semi-formal papers on naming are hard to come by - I've been using this 1993 one by Rob van der Linden, which despite being surprisingly prescient must have been superseded by something more web-age by now).
Really? I would be interested in your perception of the relative investment in Java-on-Linux vs. C Sharp-on-Linux, because my impression from inside corporates is that Java is the main driver for adopting Linux in the organization whereas C Sharp / Mono is nowhere, and I mean nowhere.
The prospect of C Sharp / Mono winning from this position is remote to say the least.
But when Microsoft's "source" is Dotnet a whole class of security vulnerabilities will be eliminated that could still be latent in Linux or Linux C/C++ applications.
Also Dotnet gives MS the kind of integrated security environment that is not even on the horizon for Linux.
So let's not be too complacent here - Dotnet will increase MS's agility and Linux will have no coherent response, right now all we have is a bunch of disparate "platform" initiatives. Although by a vast margin the greatest investment is for the Java platform on Linux, in general this fact has yet to be recognised in terms of any strategic decisions for the OS and associated applications.
No, you're thinking of the purpose of capitalists or other market participants.
The -ism ending is a clue that this is a state (and world) economic policy, brought about by deliberate actions of governments.
As such its purpose is to organize human behaviour, and innovative products are precisely one of the goals of such a policy.
See? I can play Shakespeare:
To be or Not to be, that...
that is illogical Captain!
even if .NET compatibility was completely dropped tomorrow, Mono woulc continue to be a great platform
.NET Development Framework" (www.go-mono.org) or it's a different platform.
Make your mind up. Either Mono "is an open source implementation of the
You can't expect people to invest in something on the grounds that it's Dotnet compatible and then not care if it suddenly isn't.
Looks more like a naive yearning than a strategy.
I think it was the old Spitting Image show that dressed the Spock puppet up as Hamlet (to spoof Nimoy's aspirations) and had him intoning "To be, or not to be... that... that is illogical Captain!"
First you need a structure.
Once you've decided on the abstractions to represent (devices, file systems, My Documents etc.) and how they are modelled you can then worry about L&F.
The main problem with the Windows GUI is the chaotic nature of the abstractions chosen, not the L&F.
Alas, we Brits can claim no credit as we were speaking Brythonic at the time (a Celtic tongue) but those pesky Angles, Saxons etc. insisted on bringing a dose of W Germanic with them.
Now only the Welsh speak British...
Actually he said this standing on top of the Air Ministry building in the middle of a raid on London.
There might be a statue, and of recent vintage (1992), but Harris was a controversial figure even during the conflict with many questions in Parliament and from the church about the area bombing strategy.
Here's a letter Churchill nearly sent at the time, saying that he wanted no more "wanton destruction". Not that his position is exactly uncontroversial either, hence this National Archives topic.
PS Regarding the church position, my father remembers reading comment in newspapers from a Canon Bell condemning area bombing, but surprisingly there doesn't seem to be any record of this books I've read, or on the net.
Right on, Fischertechnik is great, highly recommended for a wide age range (6 up). When it appeared back in the 70s it was a huge advance over old Lego and Meccano / Erector Set and I would think it holds up very well today against the likes of Knex and Mindstorms. The basics of wheels, gears, joints and axles and are very mechanically solid - like Meccano, unlike Lego - but very easy to snap together. The electronics always appeared very modern - all fine wires, quiet motors and tiny lights so I'm not surprised to hear that they've responded to the digital age in style.
Trying to adjust white balance on Mars sounds like a challenge.
Is it right to tweak the photo so the test chart comes out like it does on Earth?
Suppose the test chart doesn't look like it does on Earth because the sunlight is reddish?
Would human visitors see red everywhere, or would their eyes adjust like they do to yellow artificial light?
I'm sure someone has the answers...
Might be worth pointing out that this is of fairly academic interest to the largest Linux users and investors since major business applications are no longer being written in C or C++.
Although it generally fails to register in Slashdot land, Java and Dotnet have happened and the dynamics of software development will ensure that there is zero chance of going back to pre-VM platforms.
The most likely way forward is that both QT and GTK2 API layers (but not necessarily the GUIs themselves) will become irrelevant. The well-meaning advocates of GUI unification are therefore in danger of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory if they fail to embrace and exploit this fundamental change.
Try SUSE 9 (OK, it DID ask me for my keyboard layout).
Unfortunately you're in the wrong forum if you want to help determine actual requirements and priorities.
This audience will still be arguing about C / C++ GUI systems when the rest of the world has moved on (to Java, Dotnet and their successors). I don't pretend to understand why this is, but after three years of putting the case for VMs as a fundamental part of Linux, I've discovered that responses to debates here in
- 50% join in thinking that the issue is about language and syntax
- 45% profess no interest on the grounds that C/C++ can do everything
- 5% of respondees "get it" and recognise that this is a problem to be addressed but have widely divergent views on the way forward
Maybe try the Parrot, DotGNU or Kaffe mailing lists?Matter of a fact, it's all dark.
But the investment in Java on Linux is approximately 100000 times that of Mono on Linux, so you might consider doing the guy a favor and propose that.
You do realize that Linux is getting into corporates on the back of Java and not because it's got kinda-neat-desktop-themes?
Go ahead, explain exactly how he will benefit from some some half-assed Microsoft wannabe that programmers don't use and managers won't touch.
it seems that if the EULA is valid, the GPL is valid; and vice-versa
Yeuuchh. Let's not go there.
EULAs attempt to constrain expectations generated by having purchased a product: it's yours but you can't disassemble it etc.
The GPL, on the other hand, represents the sole means by which this source code came into your possession. It's therefore not a modification or extension of any more fundamental entitlement - if there was no GPL then you wouldn't have the code, period, whereas plenty of software has been sold and used without EULAs.
Linux will try to implement Mono to keep up
Linux? Who's he?
Meanwhile, the Linux user community will carry on using Java; the investment in Java-on-Linux being at least four orders of magnitude greater than Mono-on-Linux and the greatest single factor in establishing Linux in at the core of enterprise IT.
Yes you are right .NET is much faster than Java OS.
Ah, finally somebody with some benchmarks.
Link?
This is kind of like Sun's JAVA OS, where everything is managed by the JVM, except .NET is fast, 95% as fast as native,
Benchmarks?