Does the government regulate this, or do individual companies simply decide a policy?
Well similar to you or I, they must retain documents that the IRS or SEC (ok not you or I relative to the SEC) would find "meaningful". Consider this, do you save your credit card statements, phone bills? If so, for how long. You typically don't need these things for "official" purposes (business use not withstanding). Would your shredding of these documents be construed as you eliminating potentially incriminating purchases or conversations. If you're not under investigation, then no. But if you are, then they could be. This is of course a VERY grey area, what is relevant to what situation? Definitely hard to nail down. Of course the govt could always enforce a "100% document retention policy";)
Quality of article notwithstanding, the case is interesting because it touches pretty much every computer sold today since pretty much everything uses either DDR or RIMMs. Then there are the human factors like the skullduggery on the part of RAMBUS, their once "gonna take over the world" position, their "relationship" with Intel, etc, etc.
Yes that was an expensive abomination, but how big was it's budget compared to overall technology r&d spending, I would guess not much, esp considering the long length of time the project took (and still takes).
Perhaps you were still in diapers during the Reagan presidency, and missed that ejaculation of defense-related R&D money?)
Wish I were;) AAMOF I get a newsletter sent out every quarter or so by the SDI that addresses "spin off" technologies related to SDI projects. It talks about commercial opportunities presented by all the SDI r&d that is going on. Now that I think about it, I think I'm only getting them either twice or once a year now (though I know that they did USED to come quarterly), budget cuts I guess.
If you could find the share of research done by the DoD I'd be grateful. I couldn't quickly google for it. But rest assured, compared to other countries it is really huge and the impact is enourmous. For example the 747 was originally designed to be a military transport.
I see where you are coming from, but I think the numbers aren't quite what you'd expect. No doubt that overall we spend significantly more than anyone else, but as a percentage, I bet we are definitely not #1. I know that Isreal for instance spends a lot on defense and I would guess that China spends a lot as a percentage.
As for the computer companies, I was referring specifically to "box" manufacturers, since they were the most "direct" comparison to an auto maker. In that regard we have names like Dell/HP-Compaq/IBM/GateWay/Apple and myriad other smaller box manufacturers. The only non-US based companies I can think of are Sony and Toshiba (who is pretty much only a notebook manuf.), though there are some second tier players (e.g. eMachines). Part of the issue here is that the margins are so slim, that unless the pc is part of an overall strategy (ala Sony), that any company would be hard pressed to make any appreciable headway against the established players. This is even more so in the corporate market, where the thought of an IT guy buying Sony's instead of Dell/HP/Compaq is rare (and buying eMachines instead almost non-existant).
Guess my big beef is that the two _products_ are so radically different, that the comparison is rather specuous at best. I would agree about there being an overall pattern though.
Actually I was "joking" too. I realized that you weren't serious since the number was so ridiculously low. That's why I said that they needed to take classes to get some "people" skills. It was meant to be facetious.
Unless I'm not getting what you're saying, I would venture to guess that a very small % of US r&d goes towards DoD activities.
The perfect example is the car industry. The US just got big and for a long time the only US car innovations are the cupholder and the SUV.
Enough with the auto industry comparo's. How many large computer manufacturers are out there that are NOT US based. How many coming on the horizon are not US based. Anyone with some marginal skill can put a PC together that has similar (if not exactly the same) specs and build quality (if not better) than any pc manuf. can sell. The same is not true for auto's. The two markets are radically different. Yes, foreign companies rule in certain aspects of computing (motherboards, optical media, etc) but the nature of the industry is so different than the auto industry, I don't see how anything other than very gross generalzations can be made.
I feel for any "great" programmer making only $50K a year. They need to take a break from programming and either learn some economics or people/sales skills.
The only way to guarantee that this doesn't occur is thorough code reviews.
Sorta, the only way to guarantee is to make ALL _checked_in_code_ reviewed. This is generally not a very practical alternative in any project that has real deadlines. What happens during a "code review" (a formal one anyway). People review the code, make comments and the developer(s) go off and make whatever changes. Ooops, gotta now review the code they changed.
Oh and a better analogy sounds like the many 4gl's out there that provide pre-post handling for their forms. This concept is then extended to methods vs form objects.
Sounds a lot like adding a pre "exception" handler in c++, mixed with somewhat normal exception handling, and doing a Microsoft and making it declarative. Sounds like an interesting feature, but without reading the book and seeing what else there is, hardly anything earth shattering. Just another way to have the compiler/dev environment formalize a programming practice.
A methodology hasn't made really made it until somebody has published a Proper Book
Are they kidding. Hell there probably books out here on clipping your finger nails using a new methodology. Now days having a book don't mean squat (unless you're a tree, beaver, or a bird).
It's got this 'Music DJ' function, but just how capable is it if it's got DRM
Presumably as capable as the content provider and/or you wallet wants it to be (unless by capable you mean using the content in any way YOU see fit vs the provider).
nd with e-mail and Java built-in, how long before we see the first T610 virus?
Well that's the risk you run whenever you have a "full featured" system. I suspect that the script kiddies are out there as we speak looking for exploits. Next thing you know you're phone will be running a pr0n site and relaying for spammers.
And exactly what are they using DRM for here... ringtones?
Games as well? I think the "feature" may be to entice content providers to create apps and content "secure" in the knowledge that the phone offers a way to "protect" that content. Right now ringtones and some games, tomorrow, who knows?
At what point do we end up with unenforceable "no camera" rules
With the slim size of modern digital cameras, any no camera rules are pretty much unenforceable anyway (at least proactively). We were just at a kids show that had a no camera rule during the performance (good luck trying to get parents to keep the cameras at home when the kiddies are involved). Several people insisted on taking snaps during the performance. During the intermission their cameras were taken away. We had our Sony (boo, hiss, evil) DCR-PC120 and could have easily recorded the entire show had we wanted to.
Well AT&T has a reasonable hardware upgrade policy. We just upgraded my wife to gsm and got the same price on the phone as we would have if I had purchased it and a plan from scratch. So now she has a new phone with a better calling plan and her same old number with a one year contract, a pretty good deal if you ask me.
(No doubt brought on in part by most people being confused about what the hell.NET was)
Well that and the fact that.NET really has nothing specifically to do with THE NET (it's a part of the picture, but certainly not THE picture as the name would suggest).
Also, I'm fairly certain they don't have a copyright on Windows, but rather a copyright on "Microsoft Windows."
Right, but if I started to sell my own Linux distro and called it "Windows 2004", then don't you think that would be very confusing to end users to see some software with that label? Of course WindowWasher and OpenWindows aren't the issue here.
Others can, and already *do*, use the name Windows in the names of their products, as well as in their trademarks.
Right, but what if I decide to produce my own Linux distro and decide to call it "Windows 2004", wouldn't that be confusing enough? And if Microsoft can't trademark Windows all by itself, then nothing stops me from doing so (unless of course they've already trademarked that, but you get my drift).
Well they wouldn't HAVE to do it. However, it is a much simpler matter for people to abuse the Windows tm vs Xerox or Kleenex. A linux distro could call itself Windows 2004 and totally confuse the hell out of people (or Windows Professional, or Windows User, or Windows Light), this could be a headache and a half for Microsoft.
Providing a graphical interface to a computer shouldn't be a monopoly for one company. Apple was wrong to sue MS.
Apple wasn't trying to monopolize the gui, just certain aspects of it. To their credit, even back then Apple knew that the gui was absolutely "the way", and they made a desperate attempt at curbing Microsoft (not to mention getting royalties from them, imagine if they'd won, they'd be fat city right now).
I remember that - they just flat-out stole the Mac interface.
No they didn't. They certainly had similar interface components (one of the most contenteous being the concept of overlapping windows), but anyone who would say that the Windows interface is derived (i.e. stolen) from the Mac interface isn't looking very closely. OK, so they windows and borders and interface "widgets", but then again so did Xerox.
IANAL, but if a judge rules that Windows is a generic term and therefore can't be a trademark (similar to Intel and 486?), then I'm assuming that not only can Lindows continue on, but other companies could actually use the full word Windows in their products right? If so, this can be extrememly expensive for Microsoft if they are then forced to change the name of Windows as they've spent untold bucks on establishing the Windows name.
Slashdot Mirror
Does the government regulate this, or do individual companies simply decide a policy?
;)
Well similar to you or I, they must retain documents that the IRS or SEC (ok not you or I relative to the SEC) would find "meaningful". Consider this, do you save your credit card statements, phone bills? If so, for how long. You typically don't need these things for "official" purposes (business use not withstanding). Would your shredding of these documents be construed as you eliminating potentially incriminating purchases or conversations. If you're not under investigation, then no. But if you are, then they could be. This is of course a VERY grey area, what is relevant to what situation? Definitely hard to nail down. Of course the govt could always enforce a "100% document retention policy"
Quality of article notwithstanding, the case is interesting because it touches pretty much every computer sold today since pretty much everything uses either DDR or RIMMs. Then there are the human factors like the skullduggery on the part of RAMBUS, their once "gonna take over the world" position, their "relationship" with Intel, etc, etc.
*cough* Strategic Defensive Initiative *cough*
;) AAMOF I get a newsletter sent out every quarter or so by the SDI that addresses "spin off" technologies related to SDI projects. It talks about commercial opportunities presented by all the SDI r&d that is going on. Now that I think about it, I think I'm only getting them either twice or once a year now (though I know that they did USED to come quarterly), budget cuts I guess.
Yes that was an expensive abomination, but how big was it's budget compared to overall technology r&d spending, I would guess not much, esp considering the long length of time the project took (and still takes).
Perhaps you were still in diapers during the Reagan presidency, and missed that ejaculation of defense-related R&D money?)
Wish I were
If you could find the share of research done by the DoD I'd be grateful. I couldn't quickly google for it. But rest assured, compared to other countries it is really huge and the impact is enourmous. For example the 747 was originally designed to be a military transport.
I see where you are coming from, but I think the numbers aren't quite what you'd expect. No doubt that overall we spend significantly more than anyone else, but as a percentage, I bet we are definitely not #1. I know that Isreal for instance spends a lot on defense and I would guess that China spends a lot as a percentage.
As for the computer companies, I was referring specifically to "box" manufacturers, since they were the most "direct" comparison to an auto maker. In that regard we have names like Dell/HP-Compaq/IBM/GateWay/Apple and myriad other smaller box manufacturers. The only non-US based companies I can think of are Sony and Toshiba (who is pretty much only a notebook manuf.), though there are some second tier players (e.g. eMachines). Part of the issue here is that the margins are so slim, that unless the pc is part of an overall strategy (ala Sony), that any company would be hard pressed to make any appreciable headway against the established players. This is even more so in the corporate market, where the thought of an IT guy buying Sony's instead of Dell/HP/Compaq is rare (and buying eMachines instead almost non-existant).
Guess my big beef is that the two _products_ are so radically different, that the comparison is rather specuous at best. I would agree about there being an overall pattern though.
Lighten up
Actually I was "joking" too. I realized that you weren't serious since the number was so ridiculously low. That's why I said that they needed to take classes to get some "people" skills. It was meant to be facetious.
In the US research is done for the DoD
Unless I'm not getting what you're saying, I would venture to guess that a very small % of US r&d goes towards DoD activities.
The perfect example is the car industry. The US just got big and for a long time the only US car innovations are the cupholder and the SUV.
Enough with the auto industry comparo's. How many large computer manufacturers are out there that are NOT US based. How many coming on the horizon are not US based. Anyone with some marginal skill can put a PC together that has similar (if not exactly the same) specs and build quality (if not better) than any pc manuf. can sell. The same is not true for auto's. The two markets are radically different. Yes, foreign companies rule in certain aspects of computing (motherboards, optical media, etc) but the nature of the industry is so different than the auto industry, I don't see how anything other than very gross generalzations can be made.
a great American programmer making $50K a year
I feel for any "great" programmer making only $50K a year. They need to take a break from programming and either learn some economics or people/sales skills.
The only way to guarantee that this doesn't occur is thorough code reviews.
Sorta, the only way to guarantee is to make ALL _checked_in_code_ reviewed. This is generally not a very practical alternative in any project that has real deadlines. What happens during a "code review" (a formal one anyway). People review the code, make comments and the developer(s) go off and make whatever changes. Ooops, gotta now review the code they changed.
When right next to the article on the monitors, is this:
Man Who Allegedly Ate Cat's Tail Ruled Insane
and
Thousands Flock To See Gold Toilets
Oh and a better analogy sounds like the many 4gl's out there that provide pre-post handling for their forms. This concept is then extended to methods vs form objects.
It isn't limited to exception handling.
I know, that's why every time I say "exception", I placed it in quotes. I was relating the physical mechanism to something similar in C++.
Sounds a lot like adding a pre "exception" handler in c++, mixed with somewhat normal exception handling, and doing a Microsoft and making it declarative. Sounds like an interesting feature, but without reading the book and seeing what else there is, hardly anything earth shattering. Just another way to have the compiler/dev environment formalize a programming practice.
A methodology hasn't made really made it until somebody has published a Proper Book
Are they kidding. Hell there probably books out here on clipping your finger nails using a new methodology. Now days having a book don't mean squat (unless you're a tree, beaver, or a bird).
and man does that new phone work fine! I just called your wife and phone sex is better than ever was :)
.5mm to allow for your increased sexual satisfaction.
Well luckily for you they increased the size of the microphone hole another
It's got this 'Music DJ' function, but just how capable is it if it's got DRM
Presumably as capable as the content provider and/or you wallet wants it to be (unless by capable you mean using the content in any way YOU see fit vs the provider).
nd with e-mail and Java built-in, how long before we see the first T610 virus?
Well that's the risk you run whenever you have a "full featured" system. I suspect that the script kiddies are out there as we speak looking for exploits. Next thing you know you're phone will be running a pr0n site and relaying for spammers.
And exactly what are they using DRM for here... ringtones?
Games as well? I think the "feature" may be to entice content providers to create apps and content "secure" in the knowledge that the phone offers a way to "protect" that content. Right now ringtones and some games, tomorrow, who knows?
At what point do we end up with unenforceable "no camera" rules
With the slim size of modern digital cameras, any no camera rules are pretty much unenforceable anyway (at least proactively). We were just at a kids show that had a no camera rule during the performance (good luck trying to get parents to keep the cameras at home when the kiddies are involved). Several people insisted on taking snaps during the performance. During the intermission their cameras were taken away. We had our Sony (boo, hiss, evil) DCR-PC120 and could have easily recorded the entire show had we wanted to.
Well AT&T has a reasonable hardware upgrade policy. We just upgraded my wife to gsm and got the same price on the phone as we would have if I had purchased it and a plan from scratch. So now she has a new phone with a better calling plan and her same old number with a one year contract, a pretty good deal if you ask me.
(No doubt brought on in part by most people being confused about what the hell .NET was)
.NET really has nothing specifically to do with THE NET (it's a part of the picture, but certainly not THE picture as the name would suggest).
Well that and the fact that
Also, I'm fairly certain they don't have a copyright on Windows, but rather a copyright on "Microsoft Windows."
Right, but if I started to sell my own Linux distro and called it "Windows 2004", then don't you think that would be very confusing to end users to see some software with that label? Of course WindowWasher and OpenWindows aren't the issue here.
Others can, and already *do*, use the name Windows in the names of their products, as well as in their trademarks.
Right, but what if I decide to produce my own Linux distro and decide to call it "Windows 2004", wouldn't that be confusing enough? And if Microsoft can't trademark Windows all by itself, then nothing stops me from doing so (unless of course they've already trademarked that, but you get my drift).
Why would they be forced to change the name?
Well they wouldn't HAVE to do it. However, it is a much simpler matter for people to abuse the Windows tm vs Xerox or Kleenex. A linux distro could call itself Windows 2004 and totally confuse the hell out of people (or Windows Professional, or Windows User, or Windows Light), this could be a headache and a half for Microsoft.
They could always change the name to Windoze and trademark that.
:)
Quick, someone trademark Windoze(t) before they can
Providing a graphical interface to a computer shouldn't be a monopoly for one company. Apple was wrong to sue MS.
Apple wasn't trying to monopolize the gui, just certain aspects of it. To their credit, even back then Apple knew that the gui was absolutely "the way", and they made a desperate attempt at curbing Microsoft (not to mention getting royalties from them, imagine if they'd won, they'd be fat city right now).
I remember that - they just flat-out stole the Mac interface.
No they didn't. They certainly had similar interface components (one of the most contenteous being the concept of overlapping windows), but anyone who would say that the Windows interface is derived (i.e. stolen) from the Mac interface isn't looking very closely. OK, so they windows and borders and interface "widgets", but then again so did Xerox.
IANAL, but if a judge rules that Windows is a generic term and therefore can't be a trademark (similar to Intel and 486?), then I'm assuming that not only can Lindows continue on, but other companies could actually use the full word Windows in their products right? If so, this can be extrememly expensive for Microsoft if they are then forced to change the name of Windows as they've spent untold bucks on establishing the Windows name.