| « | April 2011 | » | ||||
 |
||||||
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | |||||
| 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
| 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 |
| 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
caffeinatedOn your marks... get set...
http://web.archive.org/web/20040608013838/http://emilysolutions.com/Papers/vhll.html#section1
(excerpts)
Frederick Brooks, in his famous article "Essence and Accidents of Software Engineering" (IEEE Computer Magazine, April 1987) gives an excellent explanation of the situation: large software systems are the most complex artifacts of human civilization; the very property of software that makes it so useful (its malleability) also makes software very difficult to produce. Brooks poses a question to sum up the entire problem: Why has the cost-to-performance ratio of computer hardware decreased by five orders of magnitude in the last 30 years, while the cost-to-performance ratio of software has not improved by even a single order of magnitude?
---------------------
That was written ten years ago so the question has compounded in importance. The situation in general hasn't changed. In fact, given the stagnation and waste generated by the many dead-ends, restatements, and missed opportunities costing the clients of the computing world at large, the situation has gotten much worse.
And people like mirror laugh about it because they know they're stealing their customers blind. He likes that because he claims it proves him right.
That's a condemnation of development techniques considered the rule within the software industry for the past four decades.
I suggest the reader work through the following and do so with an open mind:
flirtyVCSY follows up Interwoven's lawsuit of October 14, 2010 attempt to have portions of patents 6826744 and 7716629 ruled invalid and unenforceable:
Interwoven versus Vertical Computer
with one of their own November 15, 2010:
Vertical Computer versus Interwoven, LG and Samsung
accident proneOnce upon a time an idea is so basic and good it sticks around and festers until it pops.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/opinion/08cringeley.html
Several years ago, the company found a way to build a data center quickly and easily by simply filling a warehouse with stacked shipping containers — each one filled with computers. You just plug the containers together and flip the switch. Clever.
Google actually borrowed the shipping container concept from The Internet Archive, a digital library, which envisioned using such containers to replicate its archive in locations all around the world. Once Larry Page, a co-founder of Google, learned how they could work, he saw shipping containers as a way for Google, too, to get its data closer to users.
Proximity to users is important because of the way that data moves around the Internet — by hopping from one router to another. Each router looks at the packet of data and sends it on in the appropriate direction; the average data packet hops 18 times as it makes its way across the Internet. Because each hop takes time — only a matter of milliseconds, but still measurable time — the best way to speed transmission is to reduce the hops. This can be done either by creating a figurative fast lane, which violates net neutrality, or by simply putting the data closer to the user, which doesn’t.
Google’s agreement with Verizon could very well be merely a way for Google to get its data closer to users, by dropping its shipping containers into Verizon data centers, or perhaps their parking lots. The phone company’s data centers, after all, are typically only one or two hops from Internet users.
So... having gateways geophysically close to users (as in one's home country) is more than just a gimmick, isn't it? Why, yes it is. It's an understanding of how latency damages the experience and immediacy breeds intimacy.
d'ohI had a little problem storing this here:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=138578&l=ef1fc615be&id=100000645764055
So I figgered I would put it here for safe keeping.
Any ideas?
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_(A_to_Z)/Stocks_V/threadview?m=ts&bn=33693&tid=33154&mid=33171&tof=1&rt=2&frt=2&off=1
Re: facebook and iframe/an asp.net 28 minutes ago
Because XML is a markup language like HTML and they can look similar with those ugly tags and all.
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_(A_to_Z)/Stocks_V/threadview?m=ts&bn=33693&tid=33154&mid=33172&tof=1&rt=2&frt=2&off=1
Re: facebook and iframe/an asp.net 8 minutes ago
I see. So how are you so certain it's HTML? You usually don't seem disposed to believe marketing writeups but you whole heartedly appear to believe those that make your case.
Like I said, languages are hard to hide because what they look like is what usually sticks out from under the tarp.
And if Facebook has "made up" a language that looks like XML but YOU swear is HTML... OK.
Then it's not HTML5 either, is it?
So Facebook, according to your reading, has gone rogue and decided screw XML and screw HTML5 WE'RE GOING TO WRITE OUR OWN LANGUAGE!!!
Yeah.
That just doesn't sound like reasonable people running a company.
Could it be they want this whole "XML programming/HTML5 rescue of XHTML desires" controversy to be resolved before they come out and tell the world how Facebook came up with this "brand new language" and are now able to interoperate not only with Microsoft but everyone else and yet are not calling it HTML5... or letting the rest of the HTML5 community in on how they're doing the functionality Facebook is doing with markup?
I didn't think HTML5 was that far along. In fact, as far as anyone knows, HTML5 is only right now trying to conquer the video hurdle.
In fact, the standards bodies W3C and WHATWG don't seem to carry any mention of the kind of programmatic markup commands being used in Facebook XFBML.
WTF????
Did something happen we're not seeing? Is somebody hiding something? What do you think?
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_(A_to_Z)/Stocks_V/threadview?m=ts&bn=33693&tid=33154&mid=33174&tof=1&rt=2&frt=2&off=1
Re: facebook and iframe/an asp.net 1 minute ago
FBML is a nonstandard form of HTML with proprietary extensions that are Facebook-specific. I don't know why you find this difficult to accept. I gave you a link. There are plenty of HTML variations out there. What's the big deal?
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_(A_to_Z)/Stocks_V/threadview?m=ts&bn=33693&tid=33154&mid=33175&tof=1&rt=2&frt=2&off=1
Re: facebook and iframe/an asp.net 6 second(s) ago
This is the big deal.
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_(A_to_Z)/Stocks_V/threadview?m=ts&bn=33693&tid=33154&mid=33173&tof=1&rt=2&frt=2&off=1
Facebook's markup language for executing programmatic functionality seems to look like XML and act like XML and not necessarily HTML.
But you insist it's HTML. Just "non-standard".
So it's not HTML5. It's a new language Facebook made to appear to be HTML... that looks and acts more like XML would.
Just curious.
You know me. I can't let anything rest. If something's sticking out from under a cover, I have to lift the cover and ask what's under there.
You know, if Facebook is moving the ball like this, then the rest of the vendors and users waiting for more HTML5 functionality are screwed. Facebook and Microsoft appear to be sneaking off the field with the ball.
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_(A_to_Z)/Stocks_V/threadview?m=ts&bn=33693&tid=33154&mid=33173&tof=1&rt=2&frt=2&off=1
Re: facebook and iframe/an asp.net 3 minutes ago
Yeah. In fact, the only difference between XML and HTML is the underlying processing of the tags and vocabulary syntax.
So HTML and XML are only separated by semantics.
So HTML has prior art as a programming language... so HTML5 can't claim any novelty in using HTML to build programmatic functional operation.
But XML is well known for ONLY being designed and used to describe data and data structure.
So any first use of XML as a programmatic functional language... is novel; it's an extension of the use cases of the XML family toward something entirely new.
And HTML? Not.
No wonder they took the HTML verbiage out of the Emily patent application. That would not be patentable because HTML has prior art in that area before circa 1999.
But XML does not have prior art in that are before circa 1999.
So, removing the references to HTML from the Emily patent application frees up the language to specifically teach in the XML domain before anyone could do so.
I see. No wonder the industry "abandoned" the use of XML (as mirror claims) for functional programming.
And if this language Facebook has looks like XML but "isn't"... and if this language Facebook has looks like HTML... but isn't HTML5...
...what is it and where did it come from?
More importantly to us, I think: where is it going?
cheeky
accident proneSo, I have only one question.
If patent 6826744 and 7076521 are unenforceable, where are the flood of products that should be out there by now based on the patents?
Not.
We do see Microsoft pressing full steam ahead but that's to be expected. We know they have a license for 6826744 from July 2008.
Based on Microsoft's descriptions of Windows Mobile 7 they appear to be able to use 7076521.
but ...
We don't see Google, or Adobe or IBM trumpeting anything close.
Open-source? Amazon just licensed what Microsoft has. Just how "unenforceable" is this brave new web-based computing world?
Apparently not very.
If you don't believe it, simply enter a comment and explain why. I'm all ears... and fingers.
d'ohJust an update on the discussion topics of the "Who's Who On The MessageBoards?" Facebook Group. Feel free to join and participate in the discussions
I think it safe to say VCSY shareholders past and present would like to know just who this person is and what his connection with the affairs around the company might be.
The burning question would need a satisfying answer as to how an individual can justify spending years on a daily basis attacking shareholders.
265070 How many SUCKERS can a SUCKER SUCK if the SUCKER mrrrfk 2/22/10 02:45 PM
265069 Has Wade gotten back to any of you losers yet? LOL mrrrfk 2/22/10 02:30 PM
265068 What happened to emilysolutions.com? Anyone??? mrrrfk 2/22/10 02:29 PM
265067 emilysolutions.com is DEAD??? Very telling. Sad. LOL. mrrrfk 2/22/10 02:04 PM
265066 RIP emilysolutions.com: Guess nobody wants this crappy product. Must be too revolutionary for everyone. LMAO! mrrrfk 2/22/10 01:35 PM
I think it's a question shareholders will pursue relentlessly until that question is answered for the indicated poster and all who have accommodated him.
I would agree the trashers do more to keep the VCSY story alive than all the posts shareholders make. An example:
http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=265072
I think it would be safe to say all VCSY shareholders past and present and future would like to know who this person is and why he sees fit to spend years on a day by day basis attacking the shareholders.
| 265070 | How many SUCKERS can a SUCKER SUCK if the SUCKER |  | mrrrfk 2/22/10 02:45 PM |
| 265069 | Has Wade gotten back to any of you losers yet? LO | | mrrrfk 2/22/10 02:30 PM |
| 265068 | What happened to emilysolutions.com? Anyone??? | | mrrrfk 2/22/10 02:29 PM |
| 265067 | emilysolutions.com is DEAD??? Very telling. Sad. |  | mrrrfk 2/22/10 02:04 PM |
| 265066 | RIP emilysolutions.com: Guess nobody wants this c | | mrrrfk 2/22/10 01:35 PM |
