Another thing, Catholicism never got out of beta. They are still working on the same code base as 2000 years ago. Can't keep people's attentions if you don't add new features.
I was raised devout Catholic. I got over it.
Beta?! We're on at least Catholicism 4.0 between the First Vatican Council, the Second Vatican Council, and the Council of Trent!
Indeed! I also made an X1541 many moons ago, and use Star Commander (http://sta.c64.org/sc.html) as an emultor.
All my Bank Street Writer files from 1985-1990 are fully accessible, which is mostly a collection of school projects and essays, not to mention MOST everything else (mostly games)... very few disc read failures. I never thought I'd be reading 25 year old 5.25 floppies!
Actually we sold a lot of machines in 85/86 with Hardrives Kaypro 16s, Z-151's Z-158s. We also did a lot of business adding hard drives. 30 mb RLL was very popular.
Windows 386 was 2.1 but it was sold as Windows 386 and only ran on 386. Again very few people bought it.
Why run DOS apps under Windows 3.11? Really simple. So you could run more than one at a time. That was Windows 386 and Windows 3.0's big feature.
You could actually run a something like ACT! and your application at the same time!
Formatting a floppy would still bring a system to it's knees but that is why they sold preformated floppies!
Netscape? You better get a copy of Trumpet Winsock first!
Yes the browser plus 3.11 and Microsoft Office really helped.
Truth is that only one part of Office really carried the day. That was Excel. Word was also a major also ran until Excel came out. And yes I had a copy of Word 1.0 back in the day. They also came bundled with the Zeniths. Nobody wanted it. They all wanted Wordstar, PFS:Write, QnA, and later WordPerfect.
Oh, I'm not saying that there were NO HDs back in 85/86/87, but I think you'd agree that the number of machines that were floppy only probably outnumbered HD systems by a pretty wide margin -- maybe three to one (or more).
Ah! That's clearer now. Okay, I agree re: Windows 386 then.
Yes, of course you could, but my point was more that you could be running Windows apps. (Or you just formatted the discs in DOS of course...)
I agree Excel helped to carry the day but a big piece of that was because it was so interoperable with Word. There were a LOT of holdouts from 1-2-3. When Word finally vanquished WordPerfect 5.1/6.1 that was as big a deal IMO.
Windows 1.0 was a total failure. Nobody used it. I worked at a computer store at the time and people would ask us to take it off the drives of the compter because they had no use for it.
Windows 2.0 was also a total failure.
Only when Windows 386 and WIndows 3.0 came out was Windows usable. Even then most people didn't use it. It just slowed down their dos programs.
Only when Windows 3.11 came out did WIndows become popular. Mostly to run DOS apps. Windows won because Microsoft just gave it away for the longest time. Almost nobody would have paid for it. That is why all the others failed. Most people wouldn't pay for a program to run programs!
Microsoft used the drug dealer method to win market share. But to call any version of Windows before 3.0 as not a failure is just not valid.
I call shenanigans!
* Windows 1.0 was MS-DOS EXEC. It didn't have an installation. Also, what drives are you referring to? As I recall hard drives were pretty scarce in 1985 (heck, even into 1988 when IDE really got going), as most XTs (and early ATs) were dual floppy systems!
* Yet Windows 2.0 manged to be successful enough that Apple sued Microsoft (in a 189 point lawsuit) over the same look & feel they "borrowed" from Xerox.
* Also, Windows/386 was a version of Windows 2.1. So much for it being a failure.
* Exactly how did running Windows 3.0 slow down DOS programs when you had to shell into Windows from DOS? Unless you put Win (or Win: to avoid the spashscreen) into your autoexec.bat, it was a manual process to load Windows!
* For that matter, why run DOS programs on Windows 3.11? You still had to shell to it from DOS, though by this time some companies had begun changing the autoexec.bat on their machines (Blackship, Fast Data and Dell come to mind).
BUT! By the time it was released (31 December 1993), Microsoft Office for Windows was already on version 3, and 4 was out a few months later. Nevermind the competing products like Lotus Smartsuite 1994, cc:Mail/Microsoft Mail or even AutoCAD . Or a little thing called Mosaic, which of course led to Internet Explorer... which also ran on Windows 3.11... as did Netscape. Have you ever heard of Novell Netware or Windows NT 3.51? WfW was the corporate client du jour for *years* (they bought it, mostly) and it's success paved the way for Windows 95.
As opposed to what... using bright, shiny polychromatic plastic cases?
As someone who in 1991 ordered his 386/SX (4MB RAM, 80MB hard drive and 256k VGA card) with MS DOS 5.0 and Windows 3.0, I'm amazed that OS/2 isn't mentioned in the article since it was the other OS option at the time.
Nope! I solved the original Diablo at least twice. I only dimly recall, but the game had four stages, the last of which you were in a church-like thing. There was a guy that walked around and occasionally crossed and knelt as if in prayer. There was some kind of dungeon where you entered onto a double staircase with about 100 things that wanted to kill you. And if you activated them the game overloaded and laaaaaged.
I wonder what network the were using in 1928? Marconi Wireless? (snicker)
Seriously, this has been in the media for days now. It's almost certainly someone using an old-style hearing aid.
Worthy successor to Diablo 2?!
on
Diablo 3 Hands-On
·
· Score: 0, Troll
Is memory failing me, or is this the same Diablo 2 which got drastically worse with every segment, as was bascially unplayable after the 3rd piece? I recall having to reload a fight after going down a flight of stairs about 50 times to just get a strike in. I also recall the graphics getting worse and worse...
Because technology is fleeting, but paper remains (at least for a few hundred years).
Consider that the best backup tapes from ten years ago are generally unreadable in most organizations. Nevermind things like Bernoulis, ZIP discs, CDs, 8mm tapes -- it all goes in the junkpile. There is simply no permanent technological solution available at any price. We have a hard time today reading the old NASA tapes from Apollo (and we saved some of that equipment!) Imagine what happens in 2110 when someone wants to find something?
Heck, even the "Digital Doomsday book" lasted only 15 years instead of 1000! http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/mar/03/research.elearning
And constantly re-scanning everything in existance every 10 years is not an option.:-(
I used to watch him after Doctor Who on PBS in the 80's... it'd be the last thing on WEDW before they went off the air. Jack, you got me to walk out the back door and look up more than once and made living in the middle of the woods all that much more tolerable. Thanks for getting me interested in Astronomy, I already miss you.
I was referring to the new faith of "Global Warming".
If they'd not have destroyed data, not conspired to bend/hide the data, not modified data and generally not taking on the "because we say so" POV, I'd consider them scientists and not second rate evangelists.
And if you consider science to be what you say it is in your first paragraph, you'd agree that what the sciece behind "Global Warming" is about as scientific as The Bible. That is, it's a lot of parables taken on faith.
I fondly remember "the good old days" when Science didn't require faith. Also, religion isn't dead in Europe -- it's just become unfashionable in some areas and/or circles.
It never could! In order to get Nixon to sign off on the Shuttle Program, NASA promised a launch of every three weeks -- something they knew full well would never happen. While it was reusable (well, the orbiter and the boosters anyway), it really was meant to work with a space station -- that is, Skylab. But it wasn't ready in time, so we sat out of space for years.
Now we have a new station that took way longer to build than we expected, which they want to deorbit soon. Frustrating!
IMO, the US should have run a long-term successor to Apollo from the end of the Apollo Applications Program (read: Skylab + Apollo/Soyuz) with the goal of setting up a permanent base on the moon with an eye on a sucessor for Mars.
But, as when you live in a house for too long (or have a job for too long), you stop being objective and stop planning for the far future. This is how we got where we are today -- a NASA that does somethings brilliantly and others not so much.
Actually, they had the Apollo-child angle in the episodes where Apollo is dealing with the black market. It just went down differently.
The casino planet's analogue in the new series was New Caprica. The idea (almost losing again, sneak attack by the Battlestar(s), the destruction of the base ship) is all there.
Baltar *never* led the Cylons, he was just a basestar commander. In the new series, he likewise was a Cylon agent of the destruction of the colonies and something more dangerous than a basestar commander.
Red Eye's analogue in the new series is probably Scar, though the duel is in space and it doesn't involve Apollo.
Count Iblis...okay, you've got me there.:-)
So...yeah pretty much everything. Just differently.
I'm with you on the most of your points, but the 70's Battlestar Galactica & the 00's Galactica are the same show exactly the same way the 1974 Three Musketeers and the 1993 Three Musketeers are the same movie. Or compare Mel Gibson's Hamlet to Kenneth Branagh's, or 1984's DUNE to the recent Sci-Fi. Things happen a little differently, but each one is a fair representation of itself.
To say that re-imagining is crap is to say that any story that is redone is automatically inferior to it's predecessor. Which I don't buy, because (who knows?) some day we might even get a version of Blake's 7 with good production values!
Did the new BSG go into territory the original didn't? Well yes, some. But *everything* that happened in the original series happened in the new one, which I give Sci-Fi kudos for. (Ok, excepting for the daggits or flying motorcycles...)
NASA still has the originals for Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16, & 17. (13 of course didn't get to land on the moon). They're at the Johnson Space Center's Informational Resources Directorate's video vault in Houston. http://www.physorg.com/news74962441.html/
...I don't see any conspiracy theorists tryng to discredit the other five landings.
Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
...That should about cover it. Ho modeled VietNam's Constitution on the USA's, there's no reason Nepal can't borrow a bit.
Slashdot Mirror
Another thing, Catholicism never got out of beta. They are still working on the same code base as 2000 years ago. Can't keep people's attentions if you don't add new features.
I was raised devout Catholic. I got over it.
Beta?! We're on at least Catholicism 4.0 between the First Vatican Council, the Second Vatican Council, and the Council of Trent!
Indeed! I also made an X1541 many moons ago, and use Star Commander (http://sta.c64.org/sc.html) as an emultor.
All my Bank Street Writer files from 1985-1990 are fully accessible, which is mostly a collection of school projects and essays, not to mention MOST everything else (mostly games)... very few disc read failures. I never thought I'd be reading 25 year old 5.25 floppies!
Actually we sold a lot of machines in 85/86 with Hardrives Kaypro 16s, Z-151's Z-158s. We also did a lot of business adding hard drives. 30 mb RLL was very popular. Windows 386 was 2.1 but it was sold as Windows 386 and only ran on 386. Again very few people bought it.
Why run DOS apps under Windows 3.11? Really simple. So you could run more than one at a time. That was Windows 386 and Windows 3.0's big feature. You could actually run a something like ACT! and your application at the same time! Formatting a floppy would still bring a system to it's knees but that is why they sold preformated floppies!
Netscape? You better get a copy of Trumpet Winsock first! Yes the browser plus 3.11 and Microsoft Office really helped. Truth is that only one part of Office really carried the day. That was Excel. Word was also a major also ran until Excel came out. And yes I had a copy of Word 1.0 back in the day. They also came bundled with the Zeniths. Nobody wanted it. They all wanted Wordstar, PFS:Write, QnA, and later WordPerfect.
Oh, I'm not saying that there were NO HDs back in 85/86/87, but I think you'd agree that the number of machines that were floppy only probably outnumbered HD systems by a pretty wide margin -- maybe three to one (or more).
Ah! That's clearer now. Okay, I agree re: Windows 386 then.
Yes, of course you could, but my point was more that you could be running Windows apps. (Or you just formatted the discs in DOS of course...)
I agree Excel helped to carry the day but a big piece of that was because it was so interoperable with Word. There were a LOT of holdouts from 1-2-3. When Word finally vanquished WordPerfect 5.1/6.1 that was as big a deal IMO.
Windows 1.0 was a total failure. Nobody used it. I worked at a computer store at the time and people would ask us to take it off the drives of the compter because they had no use for it. Windows 2.0 was also a total failure. Only when Windows 386 and WIndows 3.0 came out was Windows usable. Even then most people didn't use it. It just slowed down their dos programs. Only when Windows 3.11 came out did WIndows become popular. Mostly to run DOS apps. Windows won because Microsoft just gave it away for the longest time. Almost nobody would have paid for it. That is why all the others failed. Most people wouldn't pay for a program to run programs! Microsoft used the drug dealer method to win market share. But to call any version of Windows before 3.0 as not a failure is just not valid.
I call shenanigans!
* Windows 1.0 was MS-DOS EXEC. It didn't have an installation. Also, what drives are you referring to? As I recall hard drives were pretty scarce in 1985 (heck, even into 1988 when IDE really got going), as most XTs (and early ATs) were dual floppy systems!
* Yet Windows 2.0 manged to be successful enough that Apple sued Microsoft (in a 189 point lawsuit) over the same look & feel they "borrowed" from Xerox.
* Also, Windows/386 was a version of Windows 2.1. So much for it being a failure.
* Exactly how did running Windows 3.0 slow down DOS programs when you had to shell into Windows from DOS? Unless you put Win (or Win: to avoid the spashscreen) into your autoexec.bat, it was a manual process to load Windows!
* For that matter, why run DOS programs on Windows 3.11? You still had to shell to it from DOS, though by this time some companies had begun changing the autoexec.bat on their machines (Blackship, Fast Data and Dell come to mind).
BUT! By the time it was released (31 December 1993), Microsoft Office for Windows was already on version 3, and 4 was out a few months later. Nevermind the competing products like Lotus Smartsuite 1994, cc:Mail/Microsoft Mail or even AutoCAD . Or a little thing called Mosaic, which of course led to Internet Explorer... which also ran on Windows 3.11... as did Netscape. Have you ever heard of Novell Netware or Windows NT 3.51? WfW was the corporate client du jour for *years* (they bought it, mostly) and it's success paved the way for Windows 95.
As opposed to what... using bright, shiny polychromatic plastic cases?
As someone who in 1991 ordered his 386/SX (4MB RAM, 80MB hard drive and 256k VGA card) with MS DOS 5.0 and Windows 3.0, I'm amazed that OS/2 isn't mentioned in the article since it was the other OS option at the time.
Apple, the largest Tech Company in the USA. Yeah, who cares!
Largest by what standard? By revenue, it would be Hewlett-Packard, followed by IBM, Dell and Microsoft and would take 3 Apples to make one HP.
It was a ploy to reduce production costs when it was done in Galactica: 1980. With CGI that's not really an issue.
Nope! I solved the original Diablo at least twice. I only dimly recall, but the game had four stages, the last of which you were in a church-like thing. There was a guy that walked around and occasionally crossed and knelt as if in prayer. There was some kind of dungeon where you entered onto a double staircase with about 100 things that wanted to kill you. And if you activated them the game overloaded and laaaaaged.
I wonder what network the were using in 1928? Marconi Wireless? (snicker)
Seriously, this has been in the media for days now. It's almost certainly someone using an old-style hearing aid.
Is memory failing me, or is this the same Diablo 2 which got drastically worse with every segment, as was bascially unplayable after the 3rd piece? I recall having to reload a fight after going down a flight of stairs about 50 times to just get a strike in. I also recall the graphics getting worse and worse...
Because technology is fleeting, but paper remains (at least for a few hundred years).
:-(
Consider that the best backup tapes from ten years ago are generally unreadable in most organizations. Nevermind things like Bernoulis, ZIP discs, CDs, 8mm tapes -- it all goes in the junkpile. There is simply no permanent technological solution available at any price. We have a hard time today reading the old NASA tapes from Apollo (and we saved some of that equipment!) Imagine what happens in 2110 when someone wants to find something?
Heck, even the "Digital Doomsday book" lasted only 15 years instead of 1000! http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/mar/03/research.elearning
And constantly re-scanning everything in existance every 10 years is not an option.
I used to watch him after Doctor Who on PBS in the 80's... it'd be the last thing on WEDW before they went off the air. Jack, you got me to walk out the back door and look up more than once and made living in the middle of the woods all that much more tolerable. Thanks for getting me interested in Astronomy, I already miss you.
It may have not been a perfect copy, but it was most certainly the product of espianoge. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18686550/ns/technology_and_science-space/ I remember this story from when I was in elementary school... funny to look back and see what was true and what wasn't. http://books.google.com/books?id=3AAAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=soviet+spies+copy+shuttle+plans+from+library+of+congress&source=bl&ots=lYosOCOXtd&sig=ByCga3UHDaLFqsfmajHwvJ97GgQ&hl=en&ei=RTgvTPnuHMKAlAeb55HWCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBMQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q&f=false
I was referring to the new faith of "Global Warming".
If they'd not have destroyed data, not conspired to bend/hide the data, not modified data and generally not taking on the "because we say so" POV, I'd consider them scientists and not second rate evangelists.
And if you consider science to be what you say it is in your first paragraph, you'd agree that what the sciece behind "Global Warming" is about as scientific as The Bible. That is, it's a lot of parables taken on faith.
I fondly remember "the good old days" when Science didn't require faith.
Also, religion isn't dead in Europe -- it's just become unfashionable in some areas and/or circles.
It never could! In order to get Nixon to sign off on the Shuttle Program, NASA promised a launch of every three weeks -- something they knew full well would never happen. While it was reusable (well, the orbiter and the boosters anyway), it really was meant to work with a space station -- that is, Skylab. But it wasn't ready in time, so we sat out of space for years.
Now we have a new station that took way longer to build than we expected, which they want to deorbit soon. Frustrating!
IMO, the US should have run a long-term successor to Apollo from the end of the Apollo Applications Program (read: Skylab + Apollo/Soyuz) with the goal of setting up a permanent base on the moon with an eye on a sucessor for Mars.
But, as when you live in a house for too long (or have a job for too long), you stop being objective and stop planning for the far future. This is how we got where we are today -- a NASA that does somethings brilliantly and others not so much.
Was neither Russian *nor* German, unless Massachusetts used to be even further east...
Except that in BRIC, R = Russia, which I'm told has a little space knowledge of its own.
Actually, they had the Apollo-child angle in the episodes where Apollo is dealing with the black market. It just went down differently. :-)
The casino planet's analogue in the new series was New Caprica. The idea (almost losing again, sneak attack by the Battlestar(s), the destruction of the base ship) is all there.
Baltar *never* led the Cylons, he was just a basestar commander. In the new series, he likewise was a Cylon agent of the destruction of the colonies and something more dangerous than a basestar commander.
Red Eye's analogue in the new series is probably Scar, though the duel is in space and it doesn't involve Apollo.
Count Iblis...okay, you've got me there.
So...yeah pretty much everything. Just differently.
I'm with you on the most of your points, but the 70's Battlestar Galactica & the 00's Galactica are the same show exactly the same way the 1974 Three Musketeers and the 1993 Three Musketeers are the same movie. Or compare Mel Gibson's Hamlet to Kenneth Branagh's, or 1984's DUNE to the recent Sci-Fi. Things happen a little differently, but each one is a fair representation of itself.
To say that re-imagining is crap is to say that any story that is redone is automatically inferior to it's predecessor. Which I don't buy, because (who knows?) some day we might even get a version of Blake's 7 with good production values!
Did the new BSG go into territory the original didn't? Well yes, some. But *everything* that happened in the original series happened in the new one, which I give Sci-Fi kudos for. (Ok, excepting for the daggits or flying motorcycles...)
Unless Chrome is going to take on Windows 3.0, I think that's stretching a wee bit...
NASA still has the originals for Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16, & 17. (13 of course didn't get to land on the moon). They're at the Johnson Space Center's Informational Resources Directorate's video vault in Houston. http://www.physorg.com/news74962441.html/
...I don't see any conspiracy theorists tryng to discredit the other five landings.
Just remember that Old Doc Bob had it in Needles first!
The pattern I cut the grass with once they put the GPS on my lawn tractor!
Amendment I
...That should about cover it. Ho modeled VietNam's Constitution on the USA's, there's no reason Nepal can't borrow a bit.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.