Yes. Scientists do not own space. Deal with it. They have to share space just like everyone else. If they have a problem with that, then they should go somewhere else. Space is large.
I see. I wouldn't reply but your troll is so weak I can't help but reply, not to help you, but perhaps some might learn.
The potential orbiting real estate around earth is actually rather small. Most useful orbits are relatively low, or at geostationary, where the orbital speed matches up with th eearth's rotation. You'll have objects wizzing around at various speeds, at low earth orbit we'll say 7 km/sec, or in geostationary, around 3 km/sec.
And collisions at those speeds are rather destructive even for itty bitty pieces.
So any junk is going to be orbiting pretty fast, and will pack a wallop if it hits anything. You might find out rather quickly just who visits you if your silly reflecting doodad takes out a military or even a nice expensive satellite for a nice powerful corporation.
Now get back to the conspiracy kook section of Youtube before mommy and daddy take their computer back. You were supposed to be doing homework anyhow.
So do we need to regulate marketing? Sabotage is clearly illegal, as it tramples on the rights of others.
Well of course it is illegal. But business engages in many illegal activities already. This is just a human nature issue. Price fixing, insider trading industrial espionage, bribery. human's competitive nature added to greed and some people are basically dishonest.
But mergers? Advertising? That needs to be regulated?
Mergers are one of the most efficient ways of creating monopolies. They also have the advantage of being legal. But they are also a tool that can end up with only one player in a market. Advertising? I guess it depends on how you are advertising. If Domino's Pizza puts out ads that Papa John's Pizza 's secret ingredient is cow manure and that their cheese contains Arsenic, Papa John's people might not like that. But with no controls, it's all good.
Government should be as small as possible, rather than all powerful,
I'll just note here that I agree. We merely have a disagreement in level.
and in the business world it should be limited simply to remedying offenses against the rights of others. NOT potential offenses (anti-monopoly type actions) or picking-and-choosing winners. By giving Government such power, it becomes trivial for players to legally buy laws and regulations to trample on the rights of others.
Let us not forget that at this point, Business is the Government.
But let us put your idea to the test in an area that I am very familiar with. RF. So we have a spectrum of frequencies available. At present, access to transmit on these frequencies is closely regulated. Removing these regulations means I can transmit on any frequency I want to, with whatever power I wish. This includes right at the same frequency of someone else s transmissions. It also means that if I wanted to introduce a Kilowatt class Wi-Fi system that wipes out everyone else's, I can do it. Even if it were decided that I was doing something illegal, it would be a nice long wait for the aggrieved.
What makes things worse is the physics of certain frequencies, with some allowing worldwide coverage using only a few watts of power. So now the libertarian use of RF is affecting global politics. And we already had a case of regulation bending that was gong to wipe out the GPS system in order to allow people to use more bandwidth on their smartphones.
Point is, unregulated use of RF would make it virtually unusable. So we license, set power limits and distribute frequency use. And we do this in conjunction with the rest of the world. It's regulated to hell and back. Here's a cool chart https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files...
Regulate, law or something, take care of it or lose it. Now in a world where people are elected to make law who don't believe in science, how am I going to explain to someone who doesn't believe in the laws of physics about the temporal aspects of th eF1 and F2 ionization layers and their effects on 4 MHz and 7 MHz signal propagation, or ducted thermal inversion propagation at the VHF frequencies?
So instead of the world of politics, where arguments from personal incredulity insure that the dumbest person in the room wins the argument, we have wisely allowed people who actually know about such things make regulations that allow citizens to make the best use of the spectrum.
But in a free market threat, there are completely unregulated devices coming from China, inexpensive and available on Ebay and other outlets, that in addition to their stated purpose, send out a lot of RF noise, which disrupts a lot of devices. The unregulated threatening the regulated.
Some issues are simply too complex for the virtually powerless politicians you envision.
And as for regulation, I don't want politicians to d
Ahh, I see. So the way to do it is to buy politicians so you can change the laws, and make it work in your favor. Imagine if Government wasn't so strong that it could do just that very thing? Then where can you buy your politicians, since they cannot change the market/playing field as you want?
Actually you don't see. Money and power. Often the two meld together. If the politician doesn't have enough power, another will come along to take that one's place. Politics is a funny business, where we are supposed to believe that people running for office want less power. I don't believe that for a minute.
The problem with all of the 'isms is that they assume everyone is honest and upstanding, They assume that no one wants more power or money than anyone else. We really do need checks and balances. We need to make certain that those who apply those checks and balances stay honest, but that's part of the process.
'isms just don't seem to take human nature into account.
How can a private company or individual eradicate the free market without the threat of force provided by a Government?
I'm not infected with the levels of greed enough to rise to the top. But let's say that I was. I make automobiles. I am driven like thte moguls of the late 1800's.
So now I produce anough good cars that I garner the largest part of the market share. But I want more.
There comes a point where you cannot gain more efficiency, and competition will erode at your huge share.
Now I will begin making certain that my competitors are going to lose business. I will do whatever I need to do to destroy them. Even if I cannot, I will enter into price fixing schemes until I get my chance to destroy them. Why? Because I know that without anything holding them back, they will try to destroy me.
You see, once I have garnered enough market share, the very last thing that I want is competition. I want to kill the free market and establish myself as the sole source. I will buy politicians, to support me, and demand that any law that stands in my way be abolished, and will pay my politicians that work for me to abolish it, If they fail, they lose all of their money and I will buy their competitors. I will eploy detectives to expose any scandals of my competitors, and I will use every legal and possibly not legal way to become a monopoly.
My desire for money drives my desire to have all of it.
Cynical? Damn straight, just happens to be what happens with an unconstrained 'ism.
The only way to thwart and warp the free market is via Government regulation; that is the essence of fascism.
Sorry, but in a regulation free free market, the first group that attiains ht egoal of monopoly will eradicate teh free market.
Why this is impossible for some folks to believe is strange. If I have the desire to own an entire market, I will use my resources to destroy my competition.
Because in a competitive environment, the most competitive win, and want to win everything. It is the nature of Capitalism, where greed is the driving force.
And if it is harnessed, it works pretty well. But if not harnessed, it will destroy itself, just like any other 'ism.
Or maybe it's just that conservatives lack any sort of creative ability.
Annnnnnd - you nailed it. It is hard to make a movie that says "Everything right now is fine, and must stay that way.
Stories must rely upon conflict, and the demand for stasis or for fighting for stasis makes for pretty bad entertainment.
If you don't like movies being made by liberals go make your own damn movies. There have been a few.. they just suck because ultra nationalist conservative dogma at it's face value is awful to look at, and even worse to live out on screen.
While I agree in principle, it is completely possible to go too far left in movies. A lot of movies today are full of hatred or at best disdain for almost half of the audience. Unless there is an incredible coincidence, there is a striking misandric element in Hollywood movies. Now don't get me wrong, if Hollywood wants to make movies were young ladies slice up live men on microtomes and make the ultimate snuff movie, to great applause - well then so be it. It's where Western culture is moving.
But there are a fair number of people who probably don't want to watch that sort of thing.
If Hollywood's business model is telling a large segment of society that it hates them, and they can make money off it, then so be it. Some years ago, movies were aimed at 5th grade males, on an intellectual level. Today, many are aimed at the opposite sex, and the message is clear if not pretty.
Astronomers care because it's not a legitimate satellite put into space to provide communication, research, or monitoring.
It's not? It can't be accurately tracked to measure Earth's gravity and variations of atmospheric density? It couldn't be used to validate Rocket Lab's third stage orbit injection performance?
That would be original, eh? So let's say that thousands of these satellites with made up science missions (who is doing the science by the way, are launched into orbit. Now other orbiting missions are threatened by the gauntlet they have to run to get through the field of these presumably useful satellites.
the orbital real estate around earth isn't infinite, and when dustmotes can be a real safety problem by virtue of sheer velocity, publicity stunts or advertisements are best kept on earth.
I guess some country is going to have an opportunity to test their anti-satellite missles. Who will it be? China? United States? Russia? Time to fetch the popcorn!
Te last thing we want to do. Taking one piece of space junk and turning it into millions of pieces of space junk makes a much more dangerous situation. There is a reason that there have been few tests of anti-satellite weapons. And the first war in earth orbit will be the last for a long time. The last access for a good while in fact.
Bring back lynching. It would do a tremendous about of good for society.
Yes, it's much more fun to string up those uppity Negroes or even set them on fire than be bothered with the niceties of a trial.
You forgot dragging them behind pick-m-up trucks.
In a country where white people are rapidly becoming a major minority, it isn't wise to encourage lynching. But then, we have some pretty good proof we aren't all that wise.
If it was "proven" then why aren't there Congressional hearings in front of the Justice committees? Articles of Impeachment being offered and voted on?
Two main reasons.:
Its purposefully difficult to impeach a sitting president. Took two years to get Nixon to the point where he knew what was going to happen if he didn't resign. Took from Day 1 of Clinton's reign. There are no charges yet to draw articles of impeachment.
The other is that Republicans are at present the majority in both house, and they support Trump.I'm not certain, but given the politicl climate, they would support him shooting someone, just as Trump himself noted.
The whole process will hinge on three things. The production of evidence by the Mueller team is the start, as to whether obstruction of Justice occurred or any crimes committed.
The second is the results of the mid-term elections. If a Republican majority exists, Trump has free reign to do as he pleases. They will allow it. If The houses flip, the outcome may be different.
The third possibility is that if ousted for office, Trump will attempt a military coup, which will be supported by the Republican Party, in which case, the USA will become a one party system. That is pretty unlikely
Given the voting tendenccies since 2017, my money is on the second option with Democrats not being afraid to impeach.
I will add that, in my experience, when DuckDuckGo doesn’t deliver what I want... generally Google also fails to do so nowadays. Frankly, I think Google’s search is not as good as it once was - people have finally figured out how to consistently game it.
Pretty much this. I'll try Google if no joy with DDG, but my experience since changing over to DDG is that Google returns more but less useful results.
This brave new world where people only consume, not create. So when this happens, no new programs will be written?
the desktop has been dead since tablets were introduced. The laptop has been dead since smartphones. The laptop will continue being dead for many years to come.
The High Sierra update killed my Final Cut Studio suite's Apps.
Sierra killed Motion first. I might have to buy an ancient iMac for FCP, since I don't do enough video work to buy new software - or worse, subscribe.
Yes, that was some years ago, and I forgot. I used Motion fairly often too. My old iMac with dual core isn't a speed demon by today's standards, but fast enough.
People write those applications on their iPhones? The idea that no one produces, only consumes, makes as much sense as the old "Everyone will be a boss" concept.
What the hell are you talking about ???? If you do not move to the new OS, all you existing Apps will work just fine, there is no "hit" You do NOT have to move, you do NOT have to upgrade, these choices are 100% the end users.
To be certain, I didn't see any warnings when High Sierra nuked my Final Cut Studio.
I would have taken the day's loss effort to go back to the previous OS, but I had an older Mac that isn't supported any more, so I just installed the programs on that.
But this is the bigger issue to me, not ancient MS-DOS batch files or 68K programs. Having been bit both on the Mac end and the Windows end, it's just screwed up that perfectly functional ad expensive software gets cast aside.
I think it likely there's going to be a lot of resistance to this one. There are an awful lot of perfectly good apps out there where the developers have gone away - they're just not going to make the transition to 64-bit.
Which ones are those? I'm not trying to be a smartass - I'm genuinely curious. I can't recall the last time I used a 32 bit Mac Application.
Apple's asking a very large number of users to take a serious a hit in terms of lost investment all at once.
True, and not true. At this time, a warning is issued that it will eventually not work. Now the true part isn't related to 32 versus 64 bit. When I upgraded to High Sierra, it killed my Final Cut Studio install. Not wanting to spend the bucks for an already functioning software that got botched, I had a Core2Duo iMac sitting around that now runs Final Cut Studio.
Then I tried installing Visual Studio on my new W10 laptop. Nope, won't work. So it will go on my W7 bootcamp install.
Fact is neither Microsoft, nor Apple are going to support a lot of old software, Someone might crippledick together some 1980's DOS games and claim 100 percent backwards compatibility, but I've got some rather expensive software that doesn't run at a couple Operating systems back.
Slashdot Mirror
So you've dropped the kidnapping oligarchy angle? Now we're talking journalism?
Some times we feed the trolls.
Yes. Scientists do not own space. Deal with it. They have to share space just like everyone else. If they have a problem with that, then they should go somewhere else. Space is large.
I see. I wouldn't reply but your troll is so weak I can't help but reply, not to help you, but perhaps some might learn.
The potential orbiting real estate around earth is actually rather small. Most useful orbits are relatively low, or at geostationary, where the orbital speed matches up with th eearth's rotation. You'll have objects wizzing around at various speeds, at low earth orbit we'll say 7 km/sec, or in geostationary, around 3 km/sec.
And collisions at those speeds are rather destructive even for itty bitty pieces. So any junk is going to be orbiting pretty fast, and will pack a wallop if it hits anything. You might find out rather quickly just who visits you if your silly reflecting doodad takes out a military or even a nice expensive satellite for a nice powerful corporation.
Now get back to the conspiracy kook section of Youtube before mommy and daddy take their computer back. You were supposed to be doing homework anyhow.
So do we need to regulate marketing? Sabotage is clearly illegal, as it tramples on the rights of others.
Well of course it is illegal. But business engages in many illegal activities already. This is just a human nature issue. Price fixing, insider trading industrial espionage, bribery. human's competitive nature added to greed and some people are basically dishonest.
But mergers? Advertising? That needs to be regulated?
Mergers are one of the most efficient ways of creating monopolies. They also have the advantage of being legal. But they are also a tool that can end up with only one player in a market. Advertising? I guess it depends on how you are advertising. If Domino's Pizza puts out ads that Papa John's Pizza 's secret ingredient is cow manure and that their cheese contains Arsenic, Papa John's people might not like that. But with no controls, it's all good.
Government should be as small as possible, rather than all powerful,
I'll just note here that I agree. We merely have a disagreement in level.
and in the business world it should be limited simply to remedying offenses against the rights of others. NOT potential offenses (anti-monopoly type actions) or picking-and-choosing winners. By giving Government such power, it becomes trivial for players to legally buy laws and regulations to trample on the rights of others.
Let us not forget that at this point, Business is the Government.
But let us put your idea to the test in an area that I am very familiar with. RF. So we have a spectrum of frequencies available. At present, access to transmit on these frequencies is closely regulated. Removing these regulations means I can transmit on any frequency I want to, with whatever power I wish. This includes right at the same frequency of someone else s transmissions. It also means that if I wanted to introduce a Kilowatt class Wi-Fi system that wipes out everyone else's, I can do it. Even if it were decided that I was doing something illegal, it would be a nice long wait for the aggrieved.
What makes things worse is the physics of certain frequencies, with some allowing worldwide coverage using only a few watts of power. So now the libertarian use of RF is affecting global politics. And we already had a case of regulation bending that was gong to wipe out the GPS system in order to allow people to use more bandwidth on their smartphones.
Point is, unregulated use of RF would make it virtually unusable. So we license, set power limits and distribute frequency use. And we do this in conjunction with the rest of the world. It's regulated to hell and back. Here's a cool chart https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files...
Regulate, law or something, take care of it or lose it. Now in a world where people are elected to make law who don't believe in science, how am I going to explain to someone who doesn't believe in the laws of physics about the temporal aspects of th eF1 and F2 ionization layers and their effects on 4 MHz and 7 MHz signal propagation, or ducted thermal inversion propagation at the VHF frequencies?
So instead of the world of politics, where arguments from personal incredulity insure that the dumbest person in the room wins the argument, we have wisely allowed people who actually know about such things make regulations that allow citizens to make the best use of the spectrum.
But in a free market threat, there are completely unregulated devices coming from China, inexpensive and available on Ebay and other outlets, that in addition to their stated purpose, send out a lot of RF noise, which disrupts a lot of devices. The unregulated threatening the regulated.
Some issues are simply too complex for the virtually powerless politicians you envision.
And as for regulation, I don't want politicians to d
Ahh, I see. So the way to do it is to buy politicians so you can change the laws, and make it work in your favor. Imagine if Government wasn't so strong that it could do just that very thing? Then where can you buy your politicians, since they cannot change the market/playing field as you want?
Actually you don't see. Money and power. Often the two meld together. If the politician doesn't have enough power, another will come along to take that one's place. Politics is a funny business, where we are supposed to believe that people running for office want less power. I don't believe that for a minute.
The problem with all of the 'isms is that they assume everyone is honest and upstanding, They assume that no one wants more power or money than anyone else. We really do need checks and balances. We need to make certain that those who apply those checks and balances stay honest, but that's part of the process.
'isms just don't seem to take human nature into account.
You, sir, are the True Scotsman.
The only people who define free markets as you do are the enemies of free markets.
Since we are in True Scotsman mode, can you give me an example of a zero regulation free Market?
How can a private company or individual eradicate the free market without the threat of force provided by a Government?
I'm not infected with the levels of greed enough to rise to the top. But let's say that I was. I make automobiles. I am driven like thte moguls of the late 1800's.
So now I produce anough good cars that I garner the largest part of the market share. But I want more.
There comes a point where you cannot gain more efficiency, and competition will erode at your huge share.
Now I will begin making certain that my competitors are going to lose business. I will do whatever I need to do to destroy them. Even if I cannot, I will enter into price fixing schemes until I get my chance to destroy them. Why? Because I know that without anything holding them back, they will try to destroy me.
You see, once I have garnered enough market share, the very last thing that I want is competition. I want to kill the free market and establish myself as the sole source. I will buy politicians, to support me, and demand that any law that stands in my way be abolished, and will pay my politicians that work for me to abolish it, If they fail, they lose all of their money and I will buy their competitors. I will eploy detectives to expose any scandals of my competitors, and I will use every legal and possibly not legal way to become a monopoly.
My desire for money drives my desire to have all of it.
Cynical? Damn straight, just happens to be what happens with an unconstrained 'ism.
Careful.. I see shades of "there has never been a true communist society", that my leftie friends keep insisting.
We should own our babies, warts and all.
There's never been any true anything 'ism society. They destroy themselves quickly just like High numbered elements.
The only way to thwart and warp the free market is via Government regulation; that is the essence of fascism.
Sorry, but in a regulation free free market, the first group that attiains ht egoal of monopoly will eradicate teh free market.
Why this is impossible for some folks to believe is strange. If I have the desire to own an entire market, I will use my resources to destroy my competition.
Because in a competitive environment, the most competitive win, and want to win everything. It is the nature of Capitalism, where greed is the driving force.
And if it is harnessed, it works pretty well. But if not harnessed, it will destroy itself, just like any other 'ism.
Or maybe it's just that conservatives lack any sort of creative ability.
Annnnnnd - you nailed it. It is hard to make a movie that says "Everything right now is fine, and must stay that way.
Stories must rely upon conflict, and the demand for stasis or for fighting for stasis makes for pretty bad entertainment.
If you don't like movies being made by liberals go make your own damn movies. There have been a few .. they just suck because ultra nationalist conservative dogma at it's face value is awful to look at, and even worse to live out on screen.
While I agree in principle, it is completely possible to go too far left in movies. A lot of movies today are full of hatred or at best disdain for almost half of the audience. Unless there is an incredible coincidence, there is a striking misandric element in Hollywood movies. Now don't get me wrong, if Hollywood wants to make movies were young ladies slice up live men on microtomes and make the ultimate snuff movie, to great applause - well then so be it. It's where Western culture is moving.
But there are a fair number of people who probably don't want to watch that sort of thing.
If Hollywood's business model is telling a large segment of society that it hates them, and they can make money off it, then so be it. Some years ago, movies were aimed at 5th grade males, on an intellectual level. Today, many are aimed at the opposite sex, and the message is clear if not pretty.
Astronomers care because it's not a legitimate satellite put into space to provide communication, research, or monitoring.
It's not? It can't be accurately tracked to measure Earth's gravity and variations of atmospheric density? It couldn't be used to validate Rocket Lab's third stage orbit injection performance?
That would be original, eh? So let's say that thousands of these satellites with made up science missions (who is doing the science by the way, are launched into orbit. Now other orbiting missions are threatened by the gauntlet they have to run to get through the field of these presumably useful satellites.
the orbital real estate around earth isn't infinite, and when dustmotes can be a real safety problem by virtue of sheer velocity, publicity stunts or advertisements are best kept on earth.
I guess some country is going to have an opportunity to test their anti-satellite missles. Who will it be? China? United States? Russia? Time to fetch the popcorn!
Te last thing we want to do. Taking one piece of space junk and turning it into millions of pieces of space junk makes a much more dangerous situation. There is a reason that there have been few tests of anti-satellite weapons. And the first war in earth orbit will be the last for a long time. The last access for a good while in fact.
Bring back lynching. It would do a tremendous about of good for society.
Yes, it's much more fun to string up those uppity Negroes or even set them on fire than be bothered with the niceties of a trial.
You forgot dragging them behind pick-m-up trucks.
In a country where white people are rapidly becoming a major minority, it isn't wise to encourage lynching. But then, we have some pretty good proof we aren't all that wise.
Just to be certain, I'm agreeing with you.
They also have the pee tape.
I think you are right. Isn't that the only part of the Dossier that hasn't been proven yet?
If it was "proven" then why aren't there Congressional hearings in front of the Justice committees? Articles of Impeachment being offered and voted on?
Two main reasons.:
Its purposefully difficult to impeach a sitting president. Took two years to get Nixon to the point where he knew what was going to happen if he didn't resign. Took from Day 1 of Clinton's reign. There are no charges yet to draw articles of impeachment.
The other is that Republicans are at present the majority in both house, and they support Trump.I'm not certain, but given the politicl climate, they would support him shooting someone, just as Trump himself noted.
The whole process will hinge on three things. The production of evidence by the Mueller team is the start, as to whether obstruction of Justice occurred or any crimes committed.
The second is the results of the mid-term elections. If a Republican majority exists, Trump has free reign to do as he pleases. They will allow it. If The houses flip, the outcome may be different.
The third possibility is that if ousted for office, Trump will attempt a military coup, which will be supported by the Republican Party, in which case, the USA will become a one party system. That is pretty unlikely
Given the voting tendenccies since 2017, my money is on the second option with Democrats not being afraid to impeach.
It's not new to IT, it's "new" to corporate management and C-level, who always complain when any security inconveniences them or their secretaries.
Exactly. These new and deeper in depth approaches are kind of silly when the suits insist on no impediment for themselves.
The problem of course, is that the person who can demand you remove any inconvenience can also fire you.
I do the same thing you’re describing.
I will add that, in my experience, when DuckDuckGo doesn’t deliver what I want... generally Google also fails to do so nowadays. Frankly, I think Google’s search is not as good as it once was - people have finally figured out how to consistently game it.
Pretty much this. I'll try Google if no joy with DDG, but my experience since changing over to DDG is that Google returns more but less useful results.
It is quite funny to see Russians become the "bad guy" again.
What race is Russian?
the desktop has been dead since tablets were introduced. The laptop has been dead since smartphones. The laptop will continue being dead for many years to come.
The High Sierra update killed my Final Cut Studio suite's Apps.
Sierra killed Motion first. I might have to buy an ancient iMac for FCP, since I don't do enough video work to buy new software - or worse, subscribe.
Yes, that was some years ago, and I forgot. I used Motion fairly often too. My old iMac with dual core isn't a speed demon by today's standards, but fast enough.
Apple computers are effectively dead.
People write those applications on their iPhones? The idea that no one produces, only consumes, makes as much sense as the old "Everyone will be a boss" concept.
What the hell are you talking about ???? If you do not move to the new OS, all you existing Apps will work just fine, there is no "hit" You do NOT have to move, you do NOT have to upgrade, these choices are 100% the end users.
To be certain, I didn't see any warnings when High Sierra nuked my Final Cut Studio.
I would have taken the day's loss effort to go back to the previous OS, but I had an older Mac that isn't supported any more, so I just installed the programs on that.
But this is the bigger issue to me, not ancient MS-DOS batch files or 68K programs. Having been bit both on the Mac end and the Windows end, it's just screwed up that perfectly functional ad expensive software gets cast aside.
Bend over and take it. Macs haven't run my 68K apps for years. 8088 MS-DOS 3.1 batch files still (mostly) work in Windoze, though.
Let me tell you about my copy of Visual Studio 2005 that will not work on W10. But at let you have those mostly working files.
I think it likely there's going to be a lot of resistance to this one. There are an awful lot of perfectly good apps out there where the developers have gone away - they're just not going to make the transition to 64-bit.
Which ones are those? I'm not trying to be a smartass - I'm genuinely curious. I can't recall the last time I used a 32 bit Mac Application.
Apple's asking a very large number of users to take a serious a hit in terms of lost investment all at once.
True, and not true. At this time, a warning is issued that it will eventually not work. Now the true part isn't related to 32 versus 64 bit. When I upgraded to High Sierra, it killed my Final Cut Studio install. Not wanting to spend the bucks for an already functioning software that got botched, I had a Core2Duo iMac sitting around that now runs Final Cut Studio.
Then I tried installing Visual Studio on my new W10 laptop. Nope, won't work. So it will go on my W7 bootcamp install.
Fact is neither Microsoft, nor Apple are going to support a lot of old software, Someone might crippledick together some 1980's DOS games and claim 100 percent backwards compatibility, but I've got some rather expensive software that doesn't run at a couple Operating systems back.
Do a diff of find / on both iOS and MacOS. It's just BSD with a pretty paint job. People pay for the paint job not the BSD.
MacOS is Unix, and, as my Linux Guru told me once, " Just think of it as the sllckest, shiniest version of Linux you've ever seen."
Noting this drives some Slashdotter Linux lovers crazy. Just watch the responses.
You mean Apple will release an iPad Pro running OS X, As us Apple-haters have been demanding all along?! ;-)
Or even MacOS?