Same here. The other nine times I used it to display powerpoint in a 75 minute class, it did just fine . . .
no:), i'm serious this time. But it still beat my first experience with NT. "uh, oh, it hung" they told me. When I asked why they didn't kill the offending task, as I'd heard NT could do, they explained that *that* was the one that hung . . .
> What he said was that
>if it hadn't been for M$ standardizing computing with DOS, there
>wouldn't be a market for Open Source now. However much I may disagree
>with M$ policies and coding today, I would tend to agree with the
>thought behind that statement.
Except that this is one of the silliest parts of the whole argument.
Plain and simply, ms-dos did *not* cuse the standardization. Instead, it *displaced* the existing CP/M standard.
We already were running the same binaries on hosts of wildly different 8080 and Z-80 machines. With recompilation, thay alsoran on the 6800 and 8086 versions of CP/M.
Also, having CP/M as a secondary rather than primary OS *slowed* the PC's acceptance in the business world.
> Bob, was one of the very, very few truly creative product attempts for
> the general market Microsoft has ever made.
yes, many people forget that. It shouldn't be that hard to remember all three innovations from microsoft:
1) 8 bit BASIC. Yes, the language existed, but actually implementing it for those silly little hobbiest toys as a commercial product was innovative.
2) The usable word processor footnote in 1984 (Word 1.0, Mac). Yes, we *could* make footnotes in wordstar, but it was a PITA. I'm told that Word Perfect came out with a footnote the same year, but it would be anothe rcouple ofyears before WP was in wide use (WS still reigned. Right up until that WS 2000 fiasco . ..)
3) Bob. Oddly, I've actually met two students who have seen in--both times in response to asking if anyone had ever heard of it. One not only remembered its existence, but actually thought it was cool, and had spent a lot of time at it.
And why doesn't it surprise me that most of the people from MS's last round of innovation are gone??? I still occsasionally use what I think are the final two decent products to leave MS: Word 5.1a, and Excel 4.0 (both mac).
Hawk, who really isn't anti-ms, but a) just hasn't seen anything worth owning from them in close to 10 years now, and b)has the usual free-market economists' distaste for monopolies which mess with his precious markets.
Actually, that was my point:) Narnia is compelling, but it's tough to find much in there, other than trnaslating children into it, that's not in the Original . . .
Some of the words just plain mean different things. For example, the jumper/sweater switch. I'm not sure I'd let my daughters go to a movie (or read a book) about a little boy that wears sleeveless dresses, which is whaqt a "jumper" is in the U.S.
hawk, whose father worked with a british mechanic who scared off a problem customer when he said he'd get a "torch" to go look under her car.
I really don't know anything about it, but my udnderstanding is that its a way of embedding the documentation and code together. Lyx now supports it. OK, I've exhausted my knowledge of the issue, but I have to do *something* to attone for stripping all the comments out of a pair of 20k Basic programs 20 years ago so I could combine them and have enough space left for data . . .
There are many movies that have improved noticably by being edited for time and/or content for television. Eddie Murphy's _The Distinguished Gentleman_ is much funnier with his mouth edited out (OK, so this applies to almost everything he's ever done:). _Moon over Parador_ is a *much* better movie edited to fit in what's left after commercials in a 2 hour slot (about 30 or 40 minutes removed, I think)--it's a good movie, but it's just too long for its material.
So yes, I like this. The movies that I could watch with my kids would be an extra. I'd use it myself.
Really. Just look at Amiga. It may have died 10 years ago, but it's spent the last seven just months away from a new release. And now, it will live again, as Slashdot and other sites recycle all the old "return of Amiga" stories after doing a globabl substition of Be for Amiga. They'll probably come out with a few variants, too.
This will be good to keep Be around for at least 5, and maybe 8, years. By then, there will be such a supply of Be stories, that Be can live again by reusing the stories with the next failed platform (and Amiga will continue to live thorugh those . ..).
>Later, around 1988, we
>obtained X, but we found out that X only did the lower-level half
>of the job,
Excuse me??? X is part of the mythical GNU operating system, too, now. Is he *trying* to become a parody of himself (OK, so it worked for John Madden . ..)
>This is myth. Less than 50% of US citizens own any stock of any kind,
> even 'stealth' stock such as mutal funds and pensions.
I generally don't bother even seeing AC's, but having seen this one on accident, I'll point out its there. He cites the 52% figure from the SEC. Your "myth" is itself a myth. Furthermore, that 52% understates the situation. Over the course of people's lifetime, far more participate--of the 48% not currently involved, some are retirees or near-retirees on older fixed-benefit plans, which are becoming extinct. Of the rest, most will move into the 52% long before retirement (and that figure can be expected to rise.
> Red-baiting. How 80s.
Trying to dismiss reality as "red-baiting." How pink . . .
>This has nothing to do with my argument.
It has *everything* to do with your argument. While it's not popular to admit among the loony left, the mainstream portions of the political spectrum do acknwoledge that the cold war as a struggle to the death. The USSR gave plenty of hard evidence that they meant to follow through with their stated goal of world conquest. Had our system not been vastly superior in its ability to produce, they would have eventually succeeded.
> Chicago-school thinking did wonders in Russia in the 90s didnt it?
We'll neve rknow. I'm no chicago-schooler, but I'll acknowledge that their proposals would work far better than the industrial feudalism is Russia today and in the 90's. The chicago school advocates both a free market and capitalism; neither of these are present in today's Russia.
>The Republicans were extremely obstructionist with Democratic
>candidates (remember Jesse Helms blocking ambassadorial appointments?)
Now wait a minute. It's not, "Republicans such as Jesse Helms were obstructions for Democratic candidates." It's more like, "Jesse Helms is an obstructionist."
The current administration isn't having a much better time with him than the previous . . .
> But I will agree with you that a rapid switch
> from a tightly-controlled economy to a completely unregulated free
> economy is dangerous.
This still misses the central problem with his argument. Russia does *not* have a free market under any useful definision, nor is it capitalistic at the moment.
A free market allows trade to occur, uhh, freely. Capitalism pays the output from resources (capital, labor, land, etc.) to the owner of that resource. While the two terms are often used interchangably, they're not.
The U.S., in general, both is capitalistic and has a free market. Russia has neither, and might better be described as industrial feudalism. Shareholders are unable to control the directors of business, who answer only to themselves. Successful business are still taken away by governments, other business, or the mob (and the lines between these aren't clear). Russia would benefit massively from free markets and capitalism, but it doesn't seem to be in their future.
> Republicrats in Congress get tired of paying for it and raffle asset
> off to corporate friends/sponsors.
Presumably, it will be auctioned to the highest bidder, not raffled off.
>Taxpayers get ZERO benefit from this
> unless they happen to be significant shareholders, which very few of
> us are.
If you're in the U.S>, s/very few/almost all/. The middle class, directly and indirectly, owns the overwhelming majority of the assets. Not typically as stock shares, but through mutual funds and retirement programs.
>If Corporate America were so damn efficient at exploiting technical
>opportunities, I'd be able to book my Pan Am flight to the moon right now.
If it weren't so damn efficient, you would have had to post in Russian. Assuming, of course, that the dictatorship had somehow collapsed without the U.S> on the outside, and that civil rights had somehow spread through the world, allowing access to such communications.
> No other country in the world comes close to the US in terms of
> economic might, and yet it is near-third-world nations like China that
> are now expanding their space programs as we are selling off ours.
That, of course, is *entirely* why we're in this. Others have pointed out that NASA was not merely about technology, but it goes deeper than that. NASA was a front line of the Cold War. Even into the 1970's, there was serious concern that the U.S.S.R. actually would become more advanced and produce more than the U.S. There was concern about more countries falling into its orbit of slavery. NASA, the moon, and the shuttle were to demonstrate otherwise and win minds around the world.
We won the space race and cold war *because* of the economic might of our system. That is, it is because the private system uses resources more efficiently that we were in a position to win. If you take a step back, the irony of complaining that a state enterprise used to prove the superiority of private enterprise over state enterprise is being transfered from the state to that very private enterprise is more than a little amusing:)
Slashdot Mirror
Same here. The other nine times I used it to display powerpoint in a 75 minute class, it did just fine . . .
no
hawk
> * No emacs. Has drop down menus. Use vi!
IOW, the parent should have been mdded up as insightfl, rather than funny . . .
hawk
> '80s that could use a punch card even if you wanted one,
some to think of it, me neither. But there were plenty of paper tapes around . . .
hawk
>if it hadn't been for M$ standardizing computing with DOS, there
>wouldn't be a market for Open Source now. However much I may disagree
>with M$ policies and coding today, I would tend to agree with the
>thought behind that statement.
Except that this is one of the silliest parts of the whole argument.
Plain and simply, ms-dos did *not* cuse the standardization. Instead, it *displaced* the existing CP/M standard.
We already were running the same binaries on hosts of wildly different 8080 and Z-80 machines. With recompilation, thay alsoran on the 6800 and 8086 versions of CP/M.
Also, having CP/M as a secondary rather than primary OS *slowed* the PC's acceptance in the business world.
hawk
> the general market Microsoft has ever made.
yes, many people forget that. It shouldn't be that hard to remember all three innovations from microsoft:
1) 8 bit BASIC. Yes, the language existed, but actually implementing it for those silly little hobbiest toys as a commercial product was innovative.
2) The usable word processor footnote in 1984 (Word 1.0, Mac). Yes, we *could* make footnotes in wordstar, but it was a PITA. I'm told that Word Perfect came out with a footnote the same year, but it would be anothe rcouple ofyears before WP was in wide use (WS still reigned. Right up until that WS 2000 fiasco . .
3) Bob. Oddly, I've actually met two students who have seen in--both times in response to asking if anyone had ever heard of it. One not only remembered its existence, but actually thought it was cool, and had spent a lot of time at it.
And why doesn't it surprise me that most of the people from MS's last round of innovation are gone??? I still occsasionally use what I think are the final two decent products to leave MS: Word 5.1a, and Excel 4.0 (both mac).
Hawk, who really isn't anti-ms, but a) just hasn't seen anything worth owning from them in close to 10 years now, and b)has the usual free-market economists' distaste for monopolies which mess with his precious markets.
hawk
hawk, whose father worked with a british mechanic who scared off a problem customer when he said he'd get a "torch" to go look under her car.
hawk
Yes, but if they were titled, "GNU/Harry Potter," he'd be much happier
:)
hawk
:)
hawk
hawk
So yes, I like this. The movies that I could watch with my kids would be an extra. I'd use it myself.
hawk
This will be good to keep Be around for at least 5, and maybe 8, years. By then, there will be such a supply of Be stories, that Be can live again by reusing the stories with the next failed platform (and Amiga will continue to live thorugh those . .
hawk
> eliminate one out of 10.
Since Rome fell, perhaps? Did anyou actually use decimation after that? Come to think of it, did rome use it for anything other than slave revolts?
hawk
> he eligible?
Only if he put it under the Holy GPL
hawk
IOW, he wants to be In Charge without the work involved
hawk
>Later, around 1988, we
>obtained X, but we found out that X only did the lower-level half
>of the job,
Excuse me??? X is part of the mythical GNU operating system, too, now. Is he *trying* to become a parody of himself (OK, so it worked for John Madden . .
hawk
> even 'stealth' stock such as mutal funds and pensions.
I generally don't bother even seeing AC's, but having seen this one on accident, I'll point out its there. He cites the 52% figure from the SEC. Your "myth" is itself a myth. Furthermore, that 52% understates the situation. Over the course of people's lifetime, far more participate--of the 48% not currently involved, some are retirees or near-retirees on older fixed-benefit plans, which are becoming extinct. Of the rest, most will move into the 52% long before retirement (and that figure can be expected to rise.
> Red-baiting. How 80s.
Trying to dismiss reality as "red-baiting." How pink . . .
>This has nothing to do with my argument.
It has *everything* to do with your argument. While it's not popular to admit among the loony left, the mainstream portions of the political spectrum do acknwoledge that the cold war as a struggle to the death. The USSR gave plenty of hard evidence that they meant to follow through with their stated goal of world conquest. Had our system not been vastly superior in its ability to produce, they would have eventually succeeded.
> Chicago-school thinking did wonders in Russia in the 90s didnt it?
We'll neve rknow. I'm no chicago-schooler, but I'll acknowledge that their proposals would work far better than the industrial feudalism is Russia today and in the 90's. The chicago school advocates both a free market and capitalism; neither of these are present in today's Russia.
hawk
>candidates (remember Jesse Helms blocking ambassadorial appointments?)
Now wait a minute. It's not, "Republicans such as Jesse Helms were obstructions for Democratic candidates." It's more like, "Jesse Helms is an obstructionist."
The current administration isn't having a much better time with him than the previous . . .
hawk
> from a tightly-controlled economy to a completely unregulated free
> economy is dangerous.
This still misses the central problem with his argument. Russia does *not* have a free market under any useful definision, nor is it capitalistic at the moment.
A free market allows trade to occur, uhh, freely. Capitalism pays the output from resources (capital, labor, land, etc.) to the owner of that resource. While the two terms are often used interchangably, they're not.
The U.S., in general, both is capitalistic and has a free market. Russia has neither, and might better be described as industrial feudalism. Shareholders are unable to control the directors of business, who answer only to themselves. Successful business are still taken away by governments, other business, or the mob (and the lines between these aren't clear). Russia would benefit massively from free markets and capitalism, but it doesn't seem to be in their future.
hawk
> off to corporate friends/sponsors.
Presumably, it will be auctioned to the highest bidder, not raffled off.
>Taxpayers get ZERO benefit from this
> unless they happen to be significant shareholders, which very few of
> us are.
If you're in the U.S>, s/very few/almost all/. The middle class, directly and indirectly, owns the overwhelming majority of the assets. Not typically as stock shares, but through mutual funds and retirement programs.
>If Corporate America were so damn efficient at exploiting technical
>opportunities, I'd be able to book my Pan Am flight to the moon right now.
If it weren't so damn efficient, you would have had to post in Russian. Assuming, of course, that the dictatorship had somehow collapsed without the U.S> on the outside, and that civil rights had somehow spread through the world, allowing access to such communications.
hawk
> No other country in the world comes close to the US in terms of
> economic might, and yet it is near-third-world nations like China that
> are now expanding their space programs as we are selling off ours.
That, of course, is *entirely* why we're in this. Others have pointed out that NASA was not merely about technology, but it goes deeper than that. NASA was a front line of the Cold War. Even into the 1970's, there was serious concern that the U.S.S.R. actually would become more advanced and produce more than the U.S. There was concern about more countries falling into its orbit of slavery. NASA, the moon, and the shuttle were to demonstrate otherwise and win minds around the world.
We won the space race and cold war *because* of the economic might of our system. That is, it is because the private system uses resources more efficiently that we were in a position to win. If you take a step back, the irony of complaining that a state enterprise used to prove the superiority of private enterprise over state enterprise is being transfered from the state to that very private enterprise is more than a little amusing
hawk
>rouge programs.
Yeah. I just *hate* it when my programs end up with makeup on them . . .
:)
hawk
nethack. the only *important* computer game. Archeologists start with a pick, while Tourists have a bunch of food, a camera, and magic maps.
hawk
hawk