"How can they win getting into the market this late and not showing hardware that is signifigantly better?"
How did Sony with with the PS2? They got into the market far later than all except Microsoft; their hardware is far behind the XBox, and yet the PS2 is 3-to-1 the most popular game console of the current state-of-the-art. Sega, who's technology was often cutting edge and who had a long history in the industry, is now defunct in the hardware market. Nintendo, the oldest of the current crop, has true market force only among young children, relying on their classic intellectual property like Mario. Perhaps I am oversimplifying, but, then, I believe so are you.
The ultimate goal of computer programming should clearly be plain english "code." If I remember my history right, this was the goal of Ada, in a sense, but even the term "code" itself demonstrates that most languages are hardly considered readable, hence the reliance on "psuedocode."
I've programmed in a fair handful of different languages, my current favorite being Java rather than some esoteric near-English language, and obviously lower-level languages will forever persist for the same reasons they currently do. But for most tasks, I shouldn't have to deal with memory pointers as in C; I shouldn't necessarily have to deal with strict object typing as most languages require (although I am displeased with Perl's vaguely counter-intuitive method of dealing with illogical variable comparisons, etc); and, ideally, I should be able to express an iterative sequence or bit of logic in little more than strictly-written English, essentially what psuedocode is now.
I have to agree with prior posters that while some of chromatic's comments are completely valid, they quibble over issues of punctuation and style in a world where the necessity of these rules are the issue.
If I have to remember to use different syntax when I do Java or PHP, I can handle that; any decent programmer can. Hopefully, though, there will be a time when I can describe briefly to the computer a task I want to do and simply have it do it. English would be the ultimate in "whipupability." (Note that I value this for its "whipupability," the ease of dealing with minor tasks quickly and efficiently as many scripting languages are designed to do now, not for its value in larger long-term projects; as I noted, low-level languages will always have their place.)
I think for the purpose to be that clear, the language would be impossibly verbose. Hard as it is to learn what amounts, often, to nearly another language or form of expression and to master the syntax of a new language, when you get down to it that abbreviated syntax, with every semicolon or parenthesis or bracket having meaning, is far more efficient in accurately expressing your ideas. That is why "psuedocode" tends to be far more verbose and far less precise than the actual code; while it is more human-readable, it in and of itself is not code and could never be understood by a machine due to its lack of precision.
It's probably relevant that some people believe that in order for an AI to acheive human-like awareness, it will have to perceive and experience the world as humans do. I personally don't subscribe to this; clearly, humans who are disabled or incapacitated and perceive the world from a wheelchair or bed are no less creative or intelligent than those who do not, but it is still an interesting point.
And even if AI software is not progressing because of wasted time on robots, those robots are still useful. Can you really picture an Aibo bought "in bulk" beating humans at soccer?
"32. Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm to its business reputation and loss of its good will, unless the status quo is maintained. Should the Defendants, be allowed to continue their assault upon the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff's industry, the Plaintiff's industry will cease to exist. This will cause more Americans to become unemployed."
If I remember right, the latest census reported that 45% of all Americans with a 6th grade education were employed in spam or spam-related industries (i.e. penis enlargement, porn production, and transporting millions of dollars out of South Africa). Imagine the cost to society if all of these people were deprived of their means to get by!
Granting a limited monopoly in the form of a patent is arguably bad enough for innovation when patents are granted for actual technological advances, say, the cotton gin (or, probably more accurately, there is a very careful balance between encouraging innovation and hindering it). Granting a limited patent for a true invention makes some sense; if it were immediately clear how the cotton gin functioned, no one would gain anything by investing the money to invent it when others could simply rip off the designs for less investment afterwards.
However, granting monopolies for business practices makes far less sense. Business plans typically do not involve huge R&D expendetures the way actual technological advances do. Instead, business plans are "gee whiz" ideas to run a business more efficiently, an end result which is ultimately more profitable for the business to implement regardless of having a monopoly on the practice or not.
If Amazon were not granted a patent for "One-Click," would they not use it? Of course not; the idea took very little investment to develop and makes their business far more profitable, regardless of its use by competitors. Patents are not necessary to inspire innovation when it comes to business practices; the necessary motive is the increased efficiency and profitability. Further, issuing a profit for a new business practice means that there can be no direct competition between Amazon and anyone else, since no one else can use Amazon's same sales methods. Therefore, there is no driving incentive for Amazon to increase their product value or profitability, and, indeed, fewer, not greater, incentive to innovate (the same problem which arises with more traditional trade monopolies).
It's difficult to show any likly benefit in innovation from business practice monopolies, but the cost is clear.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not slashdotted, you Karma-whore.
How did Sony with with the PS2? They got into the market far later than all except Microsoft; their hardware is far behind the XBox, and yet the PS2 is 3-to-1 the most popular game console of the current state-of-the-art. Sega, who's technology was often cutting edge and who had a long history in the industry, is now defunct in the hardware market. Nintendo, the oldest of the current crop, has true market force only among young children, relying on their classic intellectual property like Mario. Perhaps I am oversimplifying, but, then, I believe so are you.
I've programmed in a fair handful of different languages, my current favorite being Java rather than some esoteric near-English language, and obviously lower-level languages will forever persist for the same reasons they currently do. But for most tasks, I shouldn't have to deal with memory pointers as in C; I shouldn't necessarily have to deal with strict object typing as most languages require (although I am displeased with Perl's vaguely counter-intuitive method of dealing with illogical variable comparisons, etc); and, ideally, I should be able to express an iterative sequence or bit of logic in little more than strictly-written English, essentially what psuedocode is now.
I have to agree with prior posters that while some of chromatic's comments are completely valid, they quibble over issues of punctuation and style in a world where the necessity of these rules are the issue.
If I have to remember to use different syntax when I do Java or PHP, I can handle that; any decent programmer can. Hopefully, though, there will be a time when I can describe briefly to the computer a task I want to do and simply have it do it. English would be the ultimate in "whipupability." (Note that I value this for its "whipupability," the ease of dealing with minor tasks quickly and efficiently as many scripting languages are designed to do now, not for its value in larger long-term projects; as I noted, low-level languages will always have their place.)
I think for the purpose to be that clear, the language would be impossibly verbose. Hard as it is to learn what amounts, often, to nearly another language or form of expression and to master the syntax of a new language, when you get down to it that abbreviated syntax, with every semicolon or parenthesis or bracket having meaning, is far more efficient in accurately expressing your ideas. That is why "psuedocode" tends to be far more verbose and far less precise than the actual code; while it is more human-readable, it in and of itself is not code and could never be understood by a machine due to its lack of precision.
And even if AI software is not progressing because of wasted time on robots, those robots are still useful. Can you really picture an Aibo bought "in bulk" beating humans at soccer?
If I remember right, the latest census reported that 45% of all Americans with a 6th grade education were employed in spam or spam-related industries (i.e. penis enlargement, porn production, and transporting millions of dollars out of South Africa). Imagine the cost to society if all of these people were deprived of their means to get by!
However, granting monopolies for business practices makes far less sense. Business plans typically do not involve huge R&D expendetures the way actual technological advances do. Instead, business plans are "gee whiz" ideas to run a business more efficiently, an end result which is ultimately more profitable for the business to implement regardless of having a monopoly on the practice or not.
If Amazon were not granted a patent for "One-Click," would they not use it? Of course not; the idea took very little investment to develop and makes their business far more profitable, regardless of its use by competitors. Patents are not necessary to inspire innovation when it comes to business practices; the necessary motive is the increased efficiency and profitability. Further, issuing a profit for a new business practice means that there can be no direct competition between Amazon and anyone else, since no one else can use Amazon's same sales methods. Therefore, there is no driving incentive for Amazon to increase their product value or profitability, and, indeed, fewer, not greater, incentive to innovate (the same problem which arises with more traditional trade monopolies).
It's difficult to show any likly benefit in innovation from business practice monopolies, but the cost is clear.