With that much money floating around, Microsoft research should be working on the CS equivalent of the Manhattan Project.
Instead we get type systems that attempt to address device driver crashing and security issues - things that would never have occured if the OS research had been done correctly up front.
Some of the Microsoft Cambridge stuff is better, but where is the beef?
> The truth is, none of the world-class pure research labs (Xerox PARC, Bell Labs, TJ Watson, etc.) do a good job of helping their parent companies in the long run.
I used to work at Bell Labs. The amount of money made from patents and intellectual property licenses derived from Bell Labs research is staggering. You have no idea.
There one around (I don't remember which) that was still generating >100M a year more than 20 years after it was filed.
I thought the reason it was called Google LABS was because they were supposed to do RESEARCH.
Research is supposed to be more long-term - less about direct revenue generation and more about advancing the state of the art. You're describing advanced development.
God forbid someone would do research at a laboratory! Fire them all! They're not directly contributing to the bottom line!
Huh? What do you mean we have no new ideas or technologies for products? I can't be because we fired all the lazy scientists...
Here is an excellent overview of exactly what is wrong with current systems research.
The gist of it is (IMHO): the current research atmosphere is too short term to support a truly revolutionary systems research program - and a good one requires more resources than one can justify.
The problems are nowhere near solved - everyone has just settled on some fixpoint.
Slashdot Mirror
With that much money floating around, Microsoft research should be working on the CS equivalent of the Manhattan Project.
Instead we get type systems that attempt to address device driver crashing and security issues - things that would never have occured if the OS research had been done correctly up front.
Some of the Microsoft Cambridge stuff is better, but where is the beef?
> Big design up front: Don't do something three times because you weren't sure how you were going to do it in the first place.
Actually, doing it two times (for small systems and sub-systems) can be extemely beneficial in making good, re-useable code.
Write it once and make your mistakes/figure it out. One of the products of this can be your unit test. Throw it away - it sucks anyway.
Write it the next time and get it correct.
Just a thought...
...was painful until you figured out how to get money (negative deposits, anyone?)
My particular bete noire was Spellbreaker. Oy, the cubes!
Infocom
:)
Sir-Tech
Guess I'm a bit old school
..."Dominion: Storm over Gift 3" by Ion Storm.
{{ Ummm.... }} {{ English }} {{ Do you have it? }}
Oh please - I use the initials "ASS" every chance I get.
Western Electric already exists - it's called Agere Systems.
Actraiser wasn't hard in the least.
If you're going for hard, go for something like Super Cobra...
..it's up, it's down, it's up, it's down...
> The truth is, none of the world-class pure research labs (Xerox PARC, Bell Labs, TJ Watson, etc.) do a good job of helping their parent companies in the long run.
I used to work at Bell Labs. The amount of money made from patents and intellectual property licenses derived from Bell Labs research is staggering. You have no idea.
There one around (I don't remember which) that was still generating >100M a year more than 20 years after it was filed.
IP is where the money from research is made.
...the TERRIBLE secret of space!
We would, but we've all been laid off.
That's why we call it the little school "up Chuck River"!
I thought the reason it was called Google LABS was because they were supposed to do RESEARCH.
Research is supposed to be more long-term - less about direct revenue generation and more about advancing the state of the art. You're describing advanced development.
God forbid someone would do research at a laboratory! Fire them all! They're not directly contributing to the bottom line!
Huh? What do you mean we have no new ideas or technologies for products? I can't be because we fired all the lazy scientists...
Ahhhh. Patchouli!
Your answer is too simplistic.
Here is an excellent overview of exactly what is wrong with current systems research.
The gist of it is (IMHO): the current research atmosphere is too short term to support a truly revolutionary systems research program - and a good one requires more resources than one can justify. The problems are nowhere near solved - everyone has just settled on some fixpoint.
This was already invented a number of years ago.
It's called PERL.
Yeah. It pisses me off that I won't get to see the season finale of "Single Female Lawyer"...
It's the old Tech (MIT) Fight Song:
e^u du dx
e^x dx
cos sec tan sin
3.14159
integral radical
mu dv
Technology! Technology!
YAAAAAAAAAAAAAY!
Mine's lower than that, even!
... 30 ... 20 ... 10 ... 5 ... rrRrkrk!
40
...Carly Fiorina is Mystique...
...I would expect that of this was really something to write home about, it would have been published somewhere like PLDI or Usenix. Was it?
For a minute there, I thought it said "converts solar energy its panels into motion via the expulsion of Gypsies"
> Golbez - Final Fantasy II - SNES: The music, background and intensity of this battle makes it a classic;
Uhhh... do you mean Zeromus?
> Odin - Ghouls & Ghosts - GEN: A friend of mine showed me this boss, and I must say that I was impressed, it was HUGE and challenging.
I thought that was Loki...
PENANCE!