You're in the very small minority. Run a few AdWord test campaigns and see what you get. I'm privy to data from a few different search engines and you would be amazed at the inane things that people search for and what they actually click on.
I spent some time reading the patent application and it appears that it falls somewhere in the middle. They're attempting to patent a technique and a format. It sounds as though they've developed a file format that stores both the data itself and how to understand the XML data (similar to a DTD) in the same file. This allows additional applications that don't understand the format to look at it and read the definition and then read in the file itself. To me, this sounds like it could increase interoperability, but the language could be carefully worded, so it's hard to say for sure how it will and could be used in the end. I only read the summary of the invention, which I've included below.
I do agree -- patenting the means by which a file format is read and written can make it useless, but that is not the case here. The headline is very misleading, suggesting that Microsoft is actually attempting to patent XML and they are not. I'd like to see this one play out a little bit. I can't say that their patent application is truly unique, but once again, it's just an application.
Summary of the Invention
[0005] The present invention is directed at providing a word-processing document in a native XML file format that may be understood by an application that understands XML, or to enable another application or service to create a rich document in XML so that the word-processing application can open it as if it was one of its own documents.
[0006] According to one aspect of the invention, a word-processor has a native XML file format. The well formed XML file fully represents the word-processor document, and fully supports the word-processor's rich formatting. Accordingly, one of the goals of such a native XML representation is have no feature losses when saving the word-processor documents in XML according to a defined XSD.
[0007] According to another aspect of the invention, there is a published XSD file that defines all the rules behind the word-processor's XML file format. The schema describes the word-processor's XML structure. The schema file mirrors the internal word-processor program while still allowing ease of use. Thus, the schema enables third party services and applications to create XML documents understandable by the word processing application.
[0008] According to yet another aspect of the invention, hints are provided within the XML associated files providing applications that understand XML a shortcut to understanding some of the features provided by the word-processor. By using the hints, the applications do not have to know all of the specific details of the internal processing of the word-processor in order to recreate a feature.
[0009] According to yet another aspect of the invention, the word-processing document is stored in a single XML file. An application will be able to fully recreate the document from this single XML file. This includes all the images and other binary data that may be present in the document. The invention provides for a way to represent all document data in a single XML file.
[0010] According to still yet another aspect of the invention, manipulation of word-processing documents may be done on computing devices that do not include the word-processor itself.
RTFA. It's not the file format that Microsoft seeks a patent on -- it's the means by which it is accessed, interpreted, and/oor written. They are NOT trying to patent XML. Perhaps they have a novel technique by which it is done. Who knows? The story has few details on it and it's just an application for a patent anyway, not a patent itself.
And you don't pay for the counterfeit $20 bills that do get printed? Or the extra Federal resources that need to be employed to fight counterfeiters? I've read a lot of comments in this thread and I'm actually split on the idea, but if you're going to start talking dollar figures, let's talk about all of them. Let's start measuring dollars and resources spent vs. saved and include ALL of those dollars. There is an extra cost on your machine and your time, but how does that compare to the spend on your taxes? Or your groceries? Or your paycheck? Or every other dollar that you spend and make due to counterfeit losses?
Yes, I'm certainly positive that the feature added some sort of bottom line product cost to the end user. However the cost is only useful to the seller for the purposes of calculating profit -- it should not matter to the consumer. The only thing that matters to the consumer is the utility it delivers and at what price. Who cares if Adobe is making $1 or $499 on the $500 software package if it delivers to you, personally, the utility that justifies the $500 charge?
Speaking specifically about this feature, it's not enforcing the law. They're not calling the police on you. The software doesn't want to do it and if you don't agree to work within its bounds, then move on to another software package. You're almost making it sound like you're being forced to use something that you don't like... Vote with your dollars.
There's one more element that you're forgetting however, and that's the PR motive, which is why I believe is the main reason that Adobe put the feature into the product in the first place. Look at all the press that it has received lately. Now EVERYONE knows that there's a new feature in Photoshop. I don't even remember when Photoshop 7.0 launched, let alone any new features that it had, but I certainly know about the new one. The new publicity alone is almost guaranteed to ship more units.
Actually, you're reading the whole article wrong. The article isn't about the music format -- it's about the music service. You're probably right in that Microsoft wants WMA to be the leading digital format, but what they really want is for a ton of companies to be offering music services, all competing against each other and, hopefully for MSFT, all using WMA. The primary benefit, of course, is market share.
It's just marked as "IANA - reserved." If they gave it up years ago and it still isn't helping, all they did was do a gesture. Are there any plans for it?
The allocation of Class A networks is not the problem. There are still Class A networks that are marked as "reserved" and are not really being used. The inefficiency in the distribution of the networks is the problem.
If you are going to pick on Class A owners, then I think there are plenty you can pick on before MIT. HP owns both the 15 and 16 spaces (16 was DEC, bought by Compaq, and now owned by HP). GE, Halliburton, Xerox, Apple, BBN (x2), FoMoCo, Prudential, Eli Lily, and even the US Postal Service are all official owners of at least a Class A network.
Your response doesn't dismiss the parent post or even particularly address it... 18-24 year olds are still least likely to vote. One particular vote in a particular district that had a 500 vote gap might be motivation for them to vote, but it's a motivation for everyone to vote, but they will still likely be the demographic least likely to vote.
Sorry, but the definition and use of email has changed many times since the original RFC was put together. While your belief is that it should not include rich media, I've found it useful in the past. I stick to text messages as much as possible, but when presenting a lot of information to people that are unfamiliar with the topic at hand, it's invaluable, particularly to business users.
What you're saying is that people are abusing what would be otherwise a very useful feature, making it difficult to manage your email. This is akin to file attachments, which are an incredibly useful feature that wasn't in the original specification, but is abused all the time. People will actually forward me 50 MB file attachments. Yes, they abuse it, and it's a pain to clean up after them sometimes, but saying that mail clients shouldn't even have the feature is not appropriate.
Speed Lane is called "EZ Pass" (WTF?) and rotaries are common.
The Massachusetts Turnpike Authority's transponder-toll collection system is called Fastlane. EZ Pass is the system that NY/NJ uses. It's all the same, though... most of the Northeast and mid-Atlantic (except NH and VA, I think) are interconnected. I believe EZ Pass is the better one to get because they actually offer discounts to NY-area tolls; Fastlane offers none. And there's no deposit.
FWIW, I think Fastlane is the better name of the two. Even better than "Speed Lane" (not sure which state/region uses this as the name).
Have a link to the fine print? I didn't hear anything about only two lanes being open. When I just drove through it an hour ago, it seemed to have at least three lanes open...
I agree completely. It seems to me that most IT systems people forget that they're a support organization for the business and when business needs changes, they need to be as cooperative as possible to get the best thing done for the business. Too many admins think that their authority is absolute and can override the needs of the business.
We eventually found out why - he had a degree in ART.
At first, I couldn't figure out what ART stood for... "Advanced Resources Technology? What kind of new degrees are they inventing now?" It took me a moment to figure out that you actually meant "art." Damn.
Sorry if I wasn't being clear, but the guy basically sent the bill to the city, who should have forwarded the bill to the contractor that was responsible. Without knowing who that contractor was, the city just paid it themselves. I thought ottawanker's question was how did the victim know that it wasn't a private contractor that wasn't being contracted by the city that hit him. Maybe I'm wrong. Or tired.
If it happened on a public street, it was operated by the city. Private operators won't be plowing the streets out of public service -- they're there to clear the parking lots of private property.
Yes, but the resource is there if you ever need it. I haven't called the police in 13 years, and even then it was to report an automobile accident I saw, but I don't mind paying taxes in order for them to be there when I need them.
Actually, in a lot of ways, your tax money is being best utilized if you never have to call the police.
tr.v. hyped, hyping, hypes
To publicize or promote, especially by extravagant, inflated, or misleading claims: hyped the new book by sending its author on a promotional tour.
Your choice of words is illuminating CharlieG. Oratory is one thing, propoganda is another.
If you're going to use a dictionary to to take apart someone's claim, then at least do it right. "hype" is different from a "hyped up." A hyped up story or product can be something promoted with a bunch of misleading information. The way it was used here was a "hyped up" group of developers. The root is not "hype" but rather "hyper" -- very excited, frenetic. But all this is academic. You knew exactly what he meant. Move on.
I agree. Announcing minor and test versions is only news worthy to the people that are following progress closely, who are likely to know about it anyway. And those people that don't follow it closely are only interested in hearing about major changes since the last time they checked up on a project.
For example, the launch of Windows 2000 didn't even make a story on Slashdot when it launched in February 2000 even though a development kernel release did. I realize a large portion of Slashdot doesn't use Windows, but it's still significant news for every nerd.
C'mon Slashdot... get back to you roots. Show me stuff that matters.
How did this comment get modded so high? There are many more comments posted that are a lot more interesting and it's not at all insightful. It's actually off-topic because it's a political opinion more than anything else and moderation happens to agree with it. I don't mind a political opinion every now and then, regardless of whether or not I disagree with it, but this comment shouldn't be ranked up here.
Don't confuse innovation with invention. Let's see what they bring to the table when these services are in full swing to see how they've innovated on an existing concept to make it better for the consumer, industry, or their own bottom line. Any one of these, among others, would make it an innovation.
Did you even try running a search? Their site tends to return Sponsored Sites, Featured Sites, and then whole sites dedicated to your query. Only then are individual pages listed. The difference is sites vs. pages. The second page of results are not second-tier, but just individual pages. The intent is obvious: ads to pay for the site, then whole websites dedicated to your query, and then individual pages. For very generic queries like Linux, it's probably better to find a whole site that's a Linux authority rather than an individual page that talks about Linux a lot. You might not like the system, and that's fine, but to say that it's skewing results to favor a competitive business agenda is completely different.
Actually, for clarification, MSN Search returns whole sites that it believes that are dedicated to the subject matter at hand. It turns up 16 whole sites (many which you listed). After that, individual pages are returned. Google mixes the two result sets. There's value in both -- sometimes a whole site is a better, more comprehensive search result. Other times, you want the specific page. I think it does a better job when you search for something more specific.
These are not sponsored links. Sponsored links come up at the top and are marked "Sponsored Sites." Even above that are "Featured Sites." Both of these spaces are sold. I agree that MSN isn't the best search engine and that at first glance it can be confusing, but they are marking all the links appropriately.
Slashdot Mirror
You're in the very small minority. Run a few AdWord test campaigns and see what you get. I'm privy to data from a few different search engines and you would be amazed at the inane things that people search for and what they actually click on.
Lightsabres? Those were from "a long, long time ago."
I spent some time reading the patent application and it appears that it falls somewhere in the middle. They're attempting to patent a technique and a format. It sounds as though they've developed a file format that stores both the data itself and how to understand the XML data (similar to a DTD) in the same file. This allows additional applications that don't understand the format to look at it and read the definition and then read in the file itself. To me, this sounds like it could increase interoperability, but the language could be carefully worded, so it's hard to say for sure how it will and could be used in the end. I only read the summary of the invention, which I've included below.
I do agree -- patenting the means by which a file format is read and written can make it useless, but that is not the case here. The headline is very misleading, suggesting that Microsoft is actually attempting to patent XML and they are not. I'd like to see this one play out a little bit. I can't say that their patent application is truly unique, but once again, it's just an application.
RTFA. It's not the file format that Microsoft seeks a patent on -- it's the means by which it is accessed, interpreted, and/oor written. They are NOT trying to patent XML. Perhaps they have a novel technique by which it is done. Who knows? The story has few details on it and it's just an application for a patent anyway, not a patent itself.
And you don't pay for the counterfeit $20 bills that do get printed? Or the extra Federal resources that need to be employed to fight counterfeiters? I've read a lot of comments in this thread and I'm actually split on the idea, but if you're going to start talking dollar figures, let's talk about all of them. Let's start measuring dollars and resources spent vs. saved and include ALL of those dollars. There is an extra cost on your machine and your time, but how does that compare to the spend on your taxes? Or your groceries? Or your paycheck? Or every other dollar that you spend and make due to counterfeit losses?
Yes, I'm certainly positive that the feature added some sort of bottom line product cost to the end user. However the cost is only useful to the seller for the purposes of calculating profit -- it should not matter to the consumer. The only thing that matters to the consumer is the utility it delivers and at what price. Who cares if Adobe is making $1 or $499 on the $500 software package if it delivers to you, personally, the utility that justifies the $500 charge?
... Vote with your dollars.
Speaking specifically about this feature, it's not enforcing the law. They're not calling the police on you. The software doesn't want to do it and if you don't agree to work within its bounds, then move on to another software package. You're almost making it sound like you're being forced to use something that you don't like
There's one more element that you're forgetting however, and that's the PR motive, which is why I believe is the main reason that Adobe put the feature into the product in the first place. Look at all the press that it has received lately. Now EVERYONE knows that there's a new feature in Photoshop. I don't even remember when Photoshop 7.0 launched, let alone any new features that it had, but I certainly know about the new one. The new publicity alone is almost guaranteed to ship more units.
Actually, you're reading the whole article wrong. The article isn't about the music format -- it's about the music service. You're probably right in that Microsoft wants WMA to be the leading digital format, but what they really want is for a ton of companies to be offering music services, all competing against each other and, hopefully for MSFT, all using WMA. The primary benefit, of course, is market share.
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
It's just marked as "IANA - reserved." If they gave it up years ago and it still isn't helping, all they did was do a gesture. Are there any plans for it?
The allocation of Class A networks is not the problem. There are still Class A networks that are marked as "reserved" and are not really being used. The inefficiency in the distribution of the networks is the problem.
If you are going to pick on Class A owners, then I think there are plenty you can pick on before MIT. HP owns both the 15 and 16 spaces (16 was DEC, bought by Compaq, and now owned by HP). GE, Halliburton, Xerox, Apple, BBN (x2), FoMoCo, Prudential, Eli Lily, and even the US Postal Service are all official owners of at least a Class A network.
Your response doesn't dismiss the parent post or even particularly address it ... 18-24 year olds are still least likely to vote. One particular vote in a particular district that had a 500 vote gap might be motivation for them to vote, but it's a motivation for everyone to vote, but they will still likely be the demographic least likely to vote.
Sorry, but the definition and use of email has changed many times since the original RFC was put together. While your belief is that it should not include rich media, I've found it useful in the past. I stick to text messages as much as possible, but when presenting a lot of information to people that are unfamiliar with the topic at hand, it's invaluable, particularly to business users.
What you're saying is that people are abusing what would be otherwise a very useful feature, making it difficult to manage your email. This is akin to file attachments, which are an incredibly useful feature that wasn't in the original specification, but is abused all the time. People will actually forward me 50 MB file attachments. Yes, they abuse it, and it's a pain to clean up after them sometimes, but saying that mail clients shouldn't even have the feature is not appropriate.
FWIW, I think Fastlane is the better name of the two. Even better than "Speed Lane" (not sure which state/region uses this as the name).
Have a link to the fine print? I didn't hear anything about only two lanes being open. When I just drove through it an hour ago, it seemed to have at least three lanes open ...
Dunno how much you're paying for electricity? Estimate it with this convenient chart: http://www.coaleducation.org/Ky_Coal_Facts/electri city/average_cost.htm
I agree completely. It seems to me that most IT systems people forget that they're a support organization for the business and when business needs changes, they need to be as cooperative as possible to get the best thing done for the business. Too many admins think that their authority is absolute and can override the needs of the business.
Sorry if I wasn't being clear, but the guy basically sent the bill to the city, who should have forwarded the bill to the contractor that was responsible. Without knowing who that contractor was, the city just paid it themselves. I thought ottawanker's question was how did the victim know that it wasn't a private contractor that wasn't being contracted by the city that hit him. Maybe I'm wrong. Or tired.
If it happened on a public street, it was operated by the city. Private operators won't be plowing the streets out of public service -- they're there to clear the parking lots of private property.
Actually, in a lot of ways, your tax money is being best utilized if you never have to call the police.
I agree. Announcing minor and test versions is only news worthy to the people that are following progress closely, who are likely to know about it anyway. And those people that don't follow it closely are only interested in hearing about major changes since the last time they checked up on a project.
... get back to you roots. Show me stuff that matters.
For example, the launch of Windows 2000 didn't even make a story on Slashdot when it launched in February 2000 even though a development kernel release did. I realize a large portion of Slashdot doesn't use Windows, but it's still significant news for every nerd.
C'mon Slashdot
How did this comment get modded so high? There are many more comments posted that are a lot more interesting and it's not at all insightful. It's actually off-topic because it's a political opinion more than anything else and moderation happens to agree with it. I don't mind a political opinion every now and then, regardless of whether or not I disagree with it, but this comment shouldn't be ranked up here.
Don't confuse innovation with invention. Let's see what they bring to the table when these services are in full swing to see how they've innovated on an existing concept to make it better for the consumer, industry, or their own bottom line. Any one of these, among others, would make it an innovation.
Did you even try running a search? Their site tends to return Sponsored Sites, Featured Sites, and then whole sites dedicated to your query. Only then are individual pages listed. The difference is sites vs. pages. The second page of results are not second-tier, but just individual pages. The intent is obvious: ads to pay for the site, then whole websites dedicated to your query, and then individual pages. For very generic queries like Linux, it's probably better to find a whole site that's a Linux authority rather than an individual page that talks about Linux a lot. You might not like the system, and that's fine, but to say that it's skewing results to favor a competitive business agenda is completely different.
Actually, for clarification, MSN Search returns whole sites that it believes that are dedicated to the subject matter at hand. It turns up 16 whole sites (many which you listed). After that, individual pages are returned. Google mixes the two result sets. There's value in both -- sometimes a whole site is a better, more comprehensive search result. Other times, you want the specific page. I think it does a better job when you search for something more specific.
These are not sponsored links. Sponsored links come up at the top and are marked "Sponsored Sites." Even above that are "Featured Sites." Both of these spaces are sold. I agree that MSN isn't the best search engine and that at first glance it can be confusing, but they are marking all the links appropriately.