"But, given that situation, if you insert a close tag, you really do have to specify what it closes"
Interesting how the in your example is much like the 'close all parens' syntax in scheme...
For a while I thought this Curl language that Tim Berners-Lee had worked on was going to catch on. It actually had the lisp-like syntax, so you really would do things like:
{text Hello {bold World}}
to write "Hello World".
It was pretty cool since you could do something like "{hello {render-3d-spinning-globe} world}" to print hello world with a real-time raytraced 3d spinning globe in the middle as well. Not kidding, their demos have an example of embedding a raytracing function in the middle of text like that.
Thanks. That was interesting. Yes, I forgot the '_'s and didn't catch it in my preview when I posted.
Just for kicks, I'll hack an XML editor I have here to format it the way you indicated (with the </> to close any tag and put them at the end of the line, just to see how I like it. I think you might be on to something here.
"the closing tag appears (incorrectly) to be meaningful"
As an aside, I've seen some C programmers that write these godaweful long functions and put meaningless closing tags at the end of their blocks too.. kinda like
if (whatever) { ... many dozends of lines of code }/* end if (whatever) */
That always bugged me and I thought they really should break up those functions. Perhaps XML added them since it's harder to break up?
"...closed source developers (i.e., proprietary software companies) can and do steal code frequently, because it's so hard to prove they did it."
It's not so hard. They can have auditors audit their software in the same way they audit their finances. In fact, I bet the same companies that do their financial audits are both technically able and very willing to get into this new auditing business.
And before you say "that won't happen" - ll it takes is customer demand for this to happen.
Call your closed source vendor and ask for an audit to insure it contains no infringing code!
Nathan Mhryvold (in discussing a threat from Sun Microsystems) sent the following memo to the Microsoft executive staff,...explaining why and how Microsoft could use preannouncement to crush the demand for a competitive product: The purpose of announcing early like this is to freeze the market at the OEM and ISV level. In this respect it is JUST like the original Windows announcement....
Mhyrvold elsewhere explained at length how Microsoft killed VisiCorp with vaporware: Microsoft "preannounced Windows, signed up the major OEMs and showed a demo to freeze the market and prevent VisiOn from getting any momentum. It sure worked VisiOn died, VisiCorp died...
Scheme proves by example that everything described in this article could have been done twenty years ago, and could be done today without XML.
And IMHO lisp's syntax has always had a nicer structure than XML's repetitive redundancy.
_<whatever> __<you> want to do in <xml>xml</xml> __</you> _</whatever>
is nothing but a set of s-expressions that read much nicer in a lisp-like syntax:
(whatever _(you want to do in (xml xml) _) )
IMveryHO the big failure of the lisp guys of old was that they were so proud of how many ')' they could put next to each other that it made their code harder to read than necessary. I bet XML would have failed too if it were commonly written
<whatever> _<you> want to do in <xml> xml </xml></you></whatever>
(and yes, the _ are just there for/.'s formatting)
5/20/2004 ... ban on upskirt photos and other kinds of video voyeurism by cell phone cameras, minicams, and other such technology, passed the House Judiciary Committee May 19.
By this law, you don't have to "have secluded themselves", as the parent post suggests - just to have "a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding such body part or parts".
So what happens if someone's wearing a short skirt when the truck goes by?
My big question is why would you rather donate to a large commercial organization well funded from it's previous Shreck flick -- rather than donate the cycles to a project like the IMP works themselves?
Remember, Microsoft has a
history of hiring strong people from it's competitors, like the
guy from SUSE
Or perhaps the best example, from cache Borland's web site back before they were payed off^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H settled their case with msft.
Microsoft's Concerted and Systematic Efforts to Unfairly Compete with Borland
...the method Microsoft chose to develop its answer to Delphi, as well as to C++ and the Internet tools, was to hire away the people at Borland who had developed Borland's superior products. By taking Borland employees, Microsoft reduces the number of people working on products that can compete with Microsoft and support open industry standards. ...
Gross had always been vehemently opposed to Microsoft and its way of doing business and had tried to discourage many of Borland's employees from taking jobs there. Representatives of Microsoft set their sights on Gross, however, and one day Silverberg and Bob Muglia of Microsoft arrived outside of Borland's headquarters in a limousine to pick up Gross to recruit him over lunch at an expensive restaurant. .... As Gross put it, without even asking him to interview, "Microsoft gave him an offer he could not refuse." Borland is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Microsoft's offer included a $1 million signing bonus, stock options and title to selected real estate in or near Redmond, Washington. Microsoft also informed Gross that it would increase the already substantial offer if he would accept it immediately, even though he had already scheduled a three month sabbatical to plan his wedding. ...Borland is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Microsoft viewed Gross as key to its successful recruitment of Anders Hejlsberg... Hejlsberg was reluctant to leave California, but Microsoft offered him a $1.5 million signing bonus, over a base salary of approximately $150,000 to $200,000 and extremely lucrative options to purchase 75,000 Microsoft shares.
Wonder if the RedHat guy got anything close.
Personally, though, I think it's nice to see that Microsoft recognises individual talent and rewards these people well.
Nathan Mhryvold (in discussing a threat from Sun Microsystems) sent the following memo to the Microsoft executive staff,,b>explaining why and how Microsoft could use preannouncement to crush the demand for a competitive product:
The purpose of announcing early like this is to freeze the market at the OEM and ISV level. In this respect it is JUST like the original Windows announcement....
Mhyrvold elsewhere explained at length how Microsoft killed VisiCorp with vaporware: Microsoft "preannounced Windows, signed up the major OEMs and showed a demo to freeze the market and prevent VisiOn from getting any momentum. It sure worked VisiOn died, VisiCorp died...
Well, I guess I just agreed with you on that point... so there wasn't anything there I could rebutt. There is indeed really cool physics & research & engineering going on in traditional semiconductor fields as well - and I guess I agree in these maturing fields, mega-corporations have an edge over the venture-funded startups because much of this research builds on their long histories of working with these materials.
" Ok, I worded my statement a bit badly but hey, this is Slashdot after all! "
Yeah, I took excerpts of your quotes a bit badly, but hey, this is/.:-)
There are certainly grey areas - but you must admit there's a pretty big gap in "high-techedness" between incremental improvements on a silicon transistor or a hard drive versus commercializing quantum computing, or using carbon nanotubes as transistors or
molecular memories or nanotubes as memories.
I'm not saying this isn't dificult - but the former is more of a manufacturing challenge where you make incremental improvements to relatively well known structures. Optimizing the efficiency of manufacturing plants and logistics operations of Wal*Mart is also an *EXTREMELY* difficult problems, and yes, I'm sure to some degree Wal*Mart's optimization of these processes could be considered innovative R&D work. But I (or, I think Dell, in the context of this thread) would call this an Engineering Led business.
But mostly I meant the stuff Dell and HP does - find a cheap contract manufacturer, find a cheap chipset, see if Intel or AMD are the better deal of the day, and put them all in a box with a pretty package.
"Real innovation and significant research are only available to incredibly big and wealthy corporations like IBM (and intel) and some other far east conglomerate."
I vehemently disagree.
The Silicon Valley venture capital community has the financial (Kleiner, Redpoint, Brentwood, Benchmark, Draper, etc), and intellectual (Stanford, Berkeley, both next door) to hold it's own against any of those far east conglomerates or wealthy corporations. Furthermore, they have as one of their primary goals to take on this kind of high-risk/high-reward R&D.
Consider just one of these VC firms. These guys are the force behind AOL, Amazon, Genzyme, Cell Genesis, Electronic Arts, Cryogen, Genentech, Google, Macromedia, Nanogen, Netscape, Pharming, Rambus, Sun, Sybase, Zetacore, etc. They certainly have the resources to accomplish "real innovation and significant research", and they have the track-record as an existance proof.
Even when the big corporations do high-tech research these days, it's often through a
venture arm investing in small organizations or a venture-funded spinoff (Affymetrix from Affymax, etc).
"One key question the scientists are trying to answer is whether these slow earthquakes add to or relieve stress in the tectonic plates, which could ultimately help to predict major earthqakes."
Wouldn't it do both. I.e. relieve stress in the spot that slipped, and add to stress in the spots where the plates are still binding?
"Linux joined the world of professional software development!!"
Do companies like Microsoft or Sun make Developers certify that the code they submit in a particular check-in isn't "borrowed" from GPL'd or other open source stuff?
Seems Linux is well ahead of professional organizations in this respect.
"The problem you describe, however, was one of the issues faced in the 1930s. Clothes washers and dryers in particular, had been in high demand."
I think you hit the nail on the head.
Dell's real observation is that computers (at least PCs) aren't a high-tech industry anymore.
Howerver, surely Dell's "The days of engineering-led technology companies are coming to an end" guideline is not at all the case for companies that
are still in a high tech sector. One of the carbon-nanotube companies may very well replace Intel in post-silicon computing. One of the robotics companies may replace much of the military. Surely these are "engineering led".
But in their market, I must agree with Dell that I don't see a "engineering-lead" Wintel-box company in the near future.
Other examples of venture backed firms: "companies that were originally venture-backed include Airgas, Amazon, Costco, Starbucks, Home Depot and Federal Express"
Sure you might claim that Starbucks owned the IP of finding good store locations and logistics to central america's coffee; but that's kinda stretching the term.
Parent wrote: "...But lets be honest here, it is a SHORT story, and if I remember correctly it is a DAMN short story.....should be pretty hard to screw up a classic like this."
Or to not give out their email addresses to spammers.
They could easly educate their students to use a throwaway yahoomail or gmail or even better the awesome spam.la service when they sign up for pr0n services or NYTimes spam lists.
I would hope not. This would make the new domains quite worthless.
It seems to me the biggest benefit is if my well-known organization who's acronym was "XYZ" could get XYZ.newdomain instead of the current lesser-known organization who has XYZ.com
"You probably already have one email address: the one your ISP gave you. For all intents and purposes, that's your canonical identity when you're on the Internet."
What? Nonsense.
Email addresses I've had through ISPs (something @home.com) have been so transient and get recycled so frequently thre's no way the ISPs email would be a reliable way of tracking someone down. I'm quite sure I'm not the first ron@myCurrentIsp.com , and I'm sure once a competitor has better rates in my area I'm reasonably sure I won't be the last.
As for "cannonical" ones -- I have a primary personal email address that I've used for longer than my ISP had it's domain name.
I also have a whole set of email addresses - one per mailing-list I subscribe to; so I can disable them when someone sells me to a spammer.
This has been by far the single most effective spam-filtering technique I've ever used. When sdot_N@cheapcomplexdevices.com gets too cluttered with spam I'll switch to sdot_N+17@cheapcomplexdevices.com, and once again will remain happily spam-free. Forcing a canonical address would certainly _increase_ my spam load, not decrease it.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting how the in your example is much like the 'close all parens' syntax in scheme...
For a while I thought this Curl language that Tim Berners-Lee had worked on was going to catch on. It actually had the lisp-like syntax, so you really would do things like:
to write "Hello World". It was pretty cool since you could do something like "{hello {render-3d-spinning-globe} world}" to print hello world with a real-time raytraced 3d spinning globe in the middle as well. Not kidding, their demos have an example of embedding a raytracing function in the middle of text like that.Just for kicks, I'll hack an XML editor I have here to format it the way you indicated (with the </> to close any tag and put them at the end of the line, just to see how I like it. I think you might be on to something here.
"the closing tag appears (incorrectly) to be meaningful"
As an aside, I've seen some C programmers that write these godaweful long functions and put meaningless closing tags at the end of their blocks too.. kinda like
That always bugged me and I thought they really should break up those functions. Perhaps XML added them since it's harder to break up?Piling up all the closing parens is exactly like writing XML/HTML like this:
I think most everyone would say that this is harder, not easier. Or is that just because it's what we're used to?It's not so hard. They can have auditors audit their software in the same way they audit their finances. In fact, I bet the same companies that do their financial audits are both technically able and very willing to get into this new auditing business.
And before you say "that won't happen" - ll it takes is customer demand for this to happen.
Call your closed source vendor and ask for an audit to insure it contains no infringing code!
It's fun to read Microsoft execs talking about their strategy of pre-announcements
And IMHO lisp's syntax has always had a nicer structure than XML's repetitive redundancy.
is nothing but a set of s-expressions that read much nicer in a lisp-like syntax:IMveryHO the big failure of the lisp guys of old was that they were so proud of how many ')' they could put next to each other that it made their code harder to read than necessary. I bet XML would have failed too if it were commonly written(and yes, the _ are just there for /.'s formatting)
Looks like the feds may outlaw this too .
By this law, you don't have to "have secluded themselves", as the parent post suggests - just to have "a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding such body part or parts".So what happens if someone's wearing a short skirt when the truck goes by?
My big question is why would you rather donate to a large commercial organization well funded from it's previous Shreck flick -- rather than donate the cycles to a project like the IMP works themselves?
Or perhaps the best example, from cache Borland's web site back before they were payed off^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H settled their case with msft.
-
Microsoft's Concerted and Systematic Efforts to Unfairly Compete with Borland
...
.... As Gross put it, without even asking him to interview, "Microsoft gave him an offer he could not refuse." Borland is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Microsoft's offer included a $1 million signing bonus, stock options and title to selected real estate in or near Redmond, Washington. Microsoft also informed Gross that it would increase the already substantial offer if he would accept it immediately, even though he had already scheduled a three month sabbatical to plan his wedding.
...Borland is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Microsoft viewed Gross as key to its successful recruitment of Anders Hejlsberg ... Hejlsberg was reluctant to leave California, but Microsoft offered him a $1.5 million signing bonus, over a base salary of approximately $150,000 to $200,000 and extremely lucrative options to purchase 75,000 Microsoft shares.
Wonder if the RedHat guy got anything close....the method Microsoft chose to develop its answer to Delphi, as well as to C++ and the Internet tools, was to hire away the people at Borland who had developed Borland's superior products. By taking Borland employees, Microsoft reduces the number of people working on products that can compete with Microsoft and support open industry standards.
Gross had always been vehemently opposed to Microsoft and its way of doing business and had tried to discourage many of Borland's employees from taking jobs there. Representatives of Microsoft set their sights on Gross, however, and one day Silverberg and Bob Muglia of Microsoft arrived outside of Borland's headquarters in a limousine to pick up Gross to recruit him over lunch at an expensive restaurant.
Personally, though, I think it's nice to see that Microsoft recognises individual talent and rewards these people well.
Consider the famous 'CALDERA INC.'S MEMORANDUM, IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF'S "PRODUCT PREANNOUNCEMENT" CLAIMS"
The purpose of announcing early like this is to freeze the market at the OEM and ISV level. In this respect it is JUST like the original Windows announcement. ...
Mhyrvold elsewhere explained at length how Microsoft killed VisiCorp with vaporware: Microsoft "preannounced Windows, signed up the major OEMs and showed a demo to freeze the market and prevent VisiOn from getting any momentum. It sure worked VisiOn died, VisiCorp died...
" Ok, I worded my statement a bit badly but hey, this is Slashdot after all! "
Yeah, I took excerpts of your quotes a bit badly, but hey, this is /. :-)
I'm not saying this isn't dificult - but the former is more of a manufacturing challenge where you make incremental improvements to relatively well known structures. Optimizing the efficiency of manufacturing plants and logistics operations of Wal*Mart is also an *EXTREMELY* difficult problems, and yes, I'm sure to some degree Wal*Mart's optimization of these processes could be considered innovative R&D work. But I (or, I think Dell, in the context of this thread) would call this an Engineering Led business.
But mostly I meant the stuff Dell and HP does - find a cheap contract manufacturer, find a cheap chipset, see if Intel or AMD are the better deal of the day, and put them all in a box with a pretty package.
I think it'd be interesting to see the customized vendor kernels like the RedHat ones and the RT ones like lynuxworks, tymesys, montevista as well.
I vehemently disagree.
The Silicon Valley venture capital community has the financial (Kleiner, Redpoint, Brentwood, Benchmark, Draper, etc), and intellectual (Stanford, Berkeley, both next door) to hold it's own against any of those far east conglomerates or wealthy corporations. Furthermore, they have as one of their primary goals to take on this kind of high-risk/high-reward R&D.
Consider just one of these VC firms. These guys are the force behind AOL, Amazon, Genzyme, Cell Genesis, Electronic Arts, Cryogen, Genentech, Google, Macromedia, Nanogen, Netscape, Pharming, Rambus, Sun, Sybase, Zetacore, etc. They certainly have the resources to accomplish "real innovation and significant research", and they have the track-record as an existance proof.
Even when the big corporations do high-tech research these days, it's often through a venture arm investing in small organizations or a venture-funded spinoff (Affymetrix from Affymax, etc).
And how about MySQL (Benchmark Capital, Index Ventures), RedHat (Benchmark, Greylock), etc.
Wouldn't it do both. I.e. relieve stress in the spot that slipped, and add to stress in the spots where the plates are still binding?
Do companies like Microsoft or Sun make Developers certify that the code they submit in a particular check-in isn't "borrowed" from GPL'd or other open source stuff?
Seems Linux is well ahead of professional organizations in this respect.
I think you hit the nail on the head.
Dell's real observation is that computers (at least PCs) aren't a high-tech industry anymore.
Howerver, surely Dell's "The days of engineering-led technology companies are coming to an end" guideline is not at all the case for companies that are still in a high tech sector. One of the carbon-nanotube companies may very well replace Intel in post-silicon computing. One of the robotics companies may replace much of the military. Surely these are "engineering led".
But in their market, I must agree with Dell that I don't see a "engineering-lead" Wintel-box company in the near future.
For example USVP invested just as happily in PetSmart, Ross, UnaMas as they did in what remains of their dotcom stuff.
Other examples of venture backed firms: "companies that were originally venture-backed include Airgas, Amazon, Costco, Starbucks, Home Depot and Federal Express"
Sure you might claim that Starbucks owned the IP of finding good store locations and logistics to central america's coffee; but that's kinda stretching the term.
I think you just supplied your own answer. Seeing how well Shrek 2 did ( shreds box office record Top weekend ever for animated film Earns $125.3 million in 5 days ), they'll turn this into a trilogy. Think Sound of Thunder Reloaded.
They could easly educate their students to use a throwaway yahoomail or gmail or even better the awesome spam.la service when they sign up for pr0n services or NYTimes spam lists.
Wow. After reading the article I'm surprised you didn't post anonymously. Any fear of royalty payments being demanded on that 20% of your crop?
It seems to me the biggest benefit is if my well-known organization who's acronym was "XYZ" could get XYZ.newdomain instead of the current lesser-known organization who has XYZ.com
What next... you block employees incoming calls via caller-id blocks to make sure the phone's only used for work-related stuff too?
What? Nonsense.
Email addresses I've had through ISPs (something @home.com) have been so transient and get recycled so frequently thre's no way the ISPs email would be a reliable way of tracking someone down. I'm quite sure I'm not the first ron@myCurrentIsp.com , and I'm sure once a competitor has better rates in my area I'm reasonably sure I won't be the last.
As for "cannonical" ones -- I have a primary personal email address that I've used for longer than my ISP had it's domain name.
I also have a whole set of email addresses - one per mailing-list I subscribe to; so I can disable them when someone sells me to a spammer.
This has been by far the single most effective spam-filtering technique I've ever used. When sdot_N@cheapcomplexdevices.com gets too cluttered with spam I'll switch to sdot_N+17@cheapcomplexdevices.com, and once again will remain happily spam-free. Forcing a canonical address would certainly _increase_ my spam load, not decrease it.