Of course, none of these have launched under their own power, yet. But the scramjet concept certainly works.
I could just as easily say, "of course, none of these fusion reactors have sustained the reaction using their own power, yet. But the fusion concept certainly works."
Of course, the "concept" works. But as usual, the devil is in the details of making these incredibly fragile and complex devices work in a practical, economical and reliable way.
If Clinton had been conviceted for lying (essentially the charge)
Just a small correction -- the charge wasn't just "lying", the charge was the President of the United States, the protector of the constitution, lying under oath, in a court of law, a much more serious offense.
Beats my Amish brethren, where we stare at a block of wood with a painted road scene, while thine other players make "clomp clomp" noises to simulate the horse and buggy racing.
I hear RT-11 is about to make a comeback! Damn you, it was one of the most powerful operating systems ever created, and STILL does things that no modern machine can do! It can, it can, IT CAN! Damn ALL YOU HEATHENS TO HELL!!!
Actually, I don't, though I live in a suburb of Los Angeles. I was actually thinking of mentioning that. I didn't make money from a dot-bomb or any sort of "right place, right time" lucky streak. I didn't even use venture capital (in fact, the one time I used venture capital, it was a $20M+ disaster. NEVER again.) I simply made the decision when I was relatively young to be an entrepreneur.
Most people simply are uncomfortable with risk. They'd rather work for someone else and get the relatively guaranteed paycheck. And you know what? That's OK -- it's a good lifestyle. But it irritates me when they assume that people who make different choices must have stolen it or gotten lucky.
Becoming extremely rich and/or powerful usually means being born into that position, or some combination of luck and breaking the law without being caught.
I'm not saying I'm "extremely" rich, but I've done pretty well in life by most standards. It had nothing to do with luck or breaking the law (nor being born wealthy). In fact, of all the rich people I know, I only know one that inherited their wealth (four kids split $160 million). I venture to say that, at least here in the US, that's far more typical.
Generally speaking, rich people are rich because they chose to be that way through hard work and sacrifice. But, for whatever reason, no one believes that. Maybe because the media only shows the Paris Hiltons of the world, when most of the working rich do their thing in obscurity.
the rest of the story, how 1% of the worlds population owns 90% of its wealth.
Of course you know that's an exaggeration, but just out of curiosity, why do you think that (small percentage) should NOT own (larger percentage) of the world's wealth? Personally, I'd rather live in that world where I can move as high as my talent can take me, than live in a world of enforced "equality" that really means transferring money from the doers to the takers.
I don't know, I'd say the biggest reason Windows 3.1 was a success is because it provided a cheap MacOS clone for all the PCs that were being sold at the time. Backwards compatibility with DOS mattered little because Windows 3.1 couldn't run many DOS programs at full speed, and anyone running DOS programs would just run full DOS.
The problem with that theory is that there were several competing Windowing systems for DOS around that time, including an X11 server, an offering from HP (whose name escapes me at the moment), and another one (bleh, the memory is going in my old age). Anyway, the reason Windows won is that people were able to run their old DOS apps in an acceptable way and didn't have to switch back and forth, which was a PITA. People wants to run their new Windows apps alongside their old DOS apps.
I have had MS Word documents go completely fubar, with no way of figuring out how to fix them.
That's because you think MS Word documents have codes, when they don't. They have styles. When you realize that everything revolves around styles, it's easy to fix things.
In case you didn't know, Windows XP and Vista use an emulator for DOS programs too.
Every environment is an "emulator" within an operating system. So what? The point for a user is that he/she can run a program and it works. In OS X, Power binaries are emulated at a deep level, but it's transparent to the user.
From a user's perspective, Linux doesn't run DOS apps if it doesn't run DOS apps without special rigamorole, whatever it is.
OTOH, Word managed to take over without Word Perfect compatibility (largely because WP was useless on Windows 3.x until most of the demand was gone), while being a worse program.
I have to disagree with you there. I was a total WP bigot, until WP 6.0, which was so brain damaged that I was forced to switch to Word. Once I got used to it, Word was so superior it wasn't even funny. My biggest revelation was realizing that WP's "Reveal Codes" function was actually a symptom of WP's design being brain damaged. One shouldn't need Reveal Codes to see why your document is fubar.
and threatened loss of marketing money kickbacks made by Microsoft against any company that dares to ship a computer without Windows on it.
Dell already sells computers without Windows on it. Why does hardly anyone choose to get it? Because very, very, very few people want it. So, Dell notwithstanding, why would companies go through the hassle of selling something that people aren't demanding in any sort of great numbers?
and run it, unmodified, in DOSEMU under any version of Linux you feel like
That's like saying I can run any Mac application on the PC I want, as long as I have a Mac emulator. Who cares? Can I download that program in Linux, and run it like any other application, unmodified?. No.
They like to use history is this essay, but backward compatability is by far the biggest factor in the history of desktop operating system software. This essay hardly mentions it, and not in the context of history. The biggest reason Windows 3.1 won was because of its backward compatability with DOS -- and Microsoft never forgot the lesson. Dos -> Win3.1 -> Win 95 -> Win 98 -> NT 3.1 (sort of) -> Win2000 -> XP -> Vista. Microsoft gives you a relatively smooth glide up the chain so that you don't have to throw away all your existing software -- and hardware. Of course, it's not perfect, but it's sure better than throwing away everything to move to Linux or a Mac.
They are bound by law not to disclose classified information, so if they violate it, they can prosecute them, but noone should censor them!
That's just silly. If, say, someone had access to the Witness Protection Program files and decided to publish a list of names and addresses (from memory), we should just let them and slap him on the wrist later?
aren't you naive!" line from people who don't believe in markets.
Unfortunately, things like this aren't subject to market forces like salads. There are multiple places I can buy a salad, which creates competition to force down prices. With a book (or music), there is only a single source for that particular book. To use the salad analogy, it would be as if only one restaurant offered salads. If you didn't like the price of the salad, you only had the option of getting a sandwich elsewhere. That's some amount of price competition, but not the same way.
Personally, I think it'd be interesting if production and distribution of media had to be split by law -- both couldn't be owned by the same people.
Try taking a black box that you put water in one side and gold comes out the other and replicating it.
It's not a black box. It's a very transparent box, with a small corner that's black. So what if certain Microsoft apps might not run at first? I'm perfectly fine with starting with an operating system that was compatible with every third party app, and only certain Microsoft apps. The biggie is reproducing the driver model so that all third party hardware works.
Microsoft will hit them with a broadside of patent lawsuits.
Possibly true, and the effort will certainly need a war chest for the lawyers. However, Microsoft is vulnerable. If there's no way to get around a patent, they'll HAVE to license their patents in reasonable terms, or they'll be hit with an easy to prove antitrust suit. It's pretty clearly in the interests of the consumer to allow a competitor in the market.
I'm not saying it would be easy, but clearly that's what the world needs.
The problem is that to such a company would have to actually work on the Hard Bits; configuration, installation, maintenance, application and service interoperability...
Hence the need for balls and a deep wallet. It's incredible that VCs can throw around hundreds of millions of dollars on WebVan, but can't fund a company to take on Microsoft directly. The upside potential is monstrously huge, and Microsoft is incredibly vulnerable. What keeps Microsoft in business is their application base. How many copies could this Company X sell with a tagline, "Absolutely, positively, 100% compatible -- only better. Give up nothing, except mediocrity."
I don't think it is legally possible to make a 100% windows clone....nevermind that those with the skills to do it would not want to.
Of course it is. Lest you forget, that's exactly what the Wine project is, not to mention "mini clones" like the (name escapes me) product that allows MS Office to run on Linux. I'm just frustrated that no one throws a ton of money at the idea and does it "for real". Like it or not, Windows is the defacto industry standard desktop-application API.
The Vista Content Protection specification could very well constitute the longest suicide note in history.
If hysterical stuff like this is the best the anti-Microsoft forces can come up with (and this guy isn't the first one, just the latest in a long line of hysterical essays), it's pretty clear that Microsoft ain't that bad as a company, despite what some people want to believe. Maybe, just maybe, if you have to resort to that kind of rhetoric, maybe your position isn't that strong?
Disclaimer: I don't hate Microsoft. I am, however, frequently annoyed by their mediocrity, and unbelievably frustrated that someone doesn't have the balls to start a company dedicated to making an absolutely, positively 100%-compatible Windows clone based on a Unix-like operating system.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, none of these have launched under their own power, yet. But the scramjet concept certainly works.
I could just as easily say, "of course, none of these fusion reactors have sustained the reaction using their own power, yet. But the fusion concept certainly works."
Of course, the "concept" works. But as usual, the devil is in the details of making these incredibly fragile and complex devices work in a practical, economical and reliable way.
Scramjets are the "fusion" of aircraft research. Always 10-20 years away. I'll believe it when I see something flying.
If Clinton had been conviceted for lying (essentially the charge)
Just a small correction -- the charge wasn't just "lying", the charge was the President of the United States, the protector of the constitution, lying under oath, in a court of law, a much more serious offense.
You know, just out of curiosity, is there a European equivalent of Slashdot? If not, why not?
Beats my Amish brethren, where we stare at a block of wood with a painted road scene, while thine other players make "clomp clomp" noises to simulate the horse and buggy racing.
I hear RT-11 is about to make a comeback! Damn you, it was one of the most powerful operating systems ever created, and STILL does things that no modern machine can do! It can, it can, IT CAN! Damn ALL YOU HEATHENS TO HELL!!!
You must live in the Bay Area.
Actually, I don't, though I live in a suburb of Los Angeles. I was actually thinking of mentioning that. I didn't make money from a dot-bomb or any sort of "right place, right time" lucky streak. I didn't even use venture capital (in fact, the one time I used venture capital, it was a $20M+ disaster. NEVER again.) I simply made the decision when I was relatively young to be an entrepreneur.
Most people simply are uncomfortable with risk. They'd rather work for someone else and get the relatively guaranteed paycheck. And you know what? That's OK -- it's a good lifestyle. But it irritates me when they assume that people who make different choices must have stolen it or gotten lucky.
Becoming extremely rich and/or powerful usually means being born into that position, or some combination of luck and breaking the law without being caught.
I'm not saying I'm "extremely" rich, but I've done pretty well in life by most standards. It had nothing to do with luck or breaking the law (nor being born wealthy). In fact, of all the rich people I know, I only know one that inherited their wealth (four kids split $160 million). I venture to say that, at least here in the US, that's far more typical.
Generally speaking, rich people are rich because they chose to be that way through hard work and sacrifice. But, for whatever reason, no one believes that. Maybe because the media only shows the Paris Hiltons of the world, when most of the working rich do their thing in obscurity.
the rest of the story, how 1% of the worlds population owns 90% of its wealth.
Of course you know that's an exaggeration, but just out of curiosity, why do you think that (small percentage) should NOT own (larger percentage) of the world's wealth? Personally, I'd rather live in that world where I can move as high as my talent can take me, than live in a world of enforced "equality" that really means transferring money from the doers to the takers.
I don't know, I'd say the biggest reason Windows 3.1 was a success is because it provided a cheap MacOS clone for all the PCs that were being sold at the time. Backwards compatibility with DOS mattered little because Windows 3.1 couldn't run many DOS programs at full speed, and anyone running DOS programs would just run full DOS.
The problem with that theory is that there were several competing Windowing systems for DOS around that time, including an X11 server, an offering from HP (whose name escapes me at the moment), and another one (bleh, the memory is going in my old age). Anyway, the reason Windows won is that people were able to run their old DOS apps in an acceptable way and didn't have to switch back and forth, which was a PITA. People wants to run their new Windows apps alongside their old DOS apps.
It is a well known fact that mfh has bought the slashdot id on ebay, and that is the reason he is on mine (and others') enemies list.
Are you seriously admitting that you cared enough about this to actually put him on your enemies list? Because he bought a low Slashdot ID?
Egads, I'm actually witnessing a new low in utter uselessness on the Internet.
I have had MS Word documents go completely fubar, with no way of figuring out how to fix them.
That's because you think MS Word documents have codes, when they don't. They have styles. When you realize that everything revolves around styles, it's easy to fix things.
In case you didn't know, Windows XP and Vista use an emulator for DOS programs too.
Every environment is an "emulator" within an operating system. So what? The point for a user is that he/she can run a program and it works. In OS X, Power binaries are emulated at a deep level, but it's transparent to the user.
From a user's perspective, Linux doesn't run DOS apps if it doesn't run DOS apps without special rigamorole, whatever it is.
OTOH, Word managed to take over without Word Perfect compatibility (largely because WP was useless on Windows 3.x until most of the demand was gone), while being a worse program.
I have to disagree with you there. I was a total WP bigot, until WP 6.0, which was so brain damaged that I was forced to switch to Word. Once I got used to it, Word was so superior it wasn't even funny. My biggest revelation was realizing that WP's "Reveal Codes" function was actually a symptom of WP's design being brain damaged. One shouldn't need Reveal Codes to see why your document is fubar.
and threatened loss of marketing money kickbacks made by Microsoft against any company that dares to ship a computer without Windows on it.
Dell already sells computers without Windows on it. Why does hardly anyone choose to get it? Because very, very, very few people want it. So, Dell notwithstanding, why would companies go through the hassle of selling something that people aren't demanding in any sort of great numbers?
and run it, unmodified, in DOSEMU under any version of Linux you feel like
That's like saying I can run any Mac application on the PC I want, as long as I have a Mac emulator. Who cares? Can I download that program in Linux, and run it like any other application, unmodified?. No.
They like to use history is this essay, but backward compatability is by far the biggest factor in the history of desktop operating system software. This essay hardly mentions it, and not in the context of history. The biggest reason Windows 3.1 won was because of its backward compatability with DOS -- and Microsoft never forgot the lesson. Dos -> Win3.1 -> Win 95 -> Win 98 -> NT 3.1 (sort of) -> Win2000 -> XP -> Vista. Microsoft gives you a relatively smooth glide up the chain so that you don't have to throw away all your existing software -- and hardware. Of course, it's not perfect, but it's sure better than throwing away everything to move to Linux or a Mac.
The only thing I'm wondering is what the hell took them so long.
Keep in mind this is comparing domain traffic. Yahoo is much broader than Google in terms of services.
They are bound by law not to disclose classified information, so if they violate it, they can prosecute them, but noone should censor them!
That's just silly. If, say, someone had access to the Witness Protection Program files and decided to publish a list of names and addresses (from memory), we should just let them and slap him on the wrist later?
Free speech is not unlimited, nor should it be.
aren't you naive!" line from people who don't believe in markets.
Unfortunately, things like this aren't subject to market forces like salads. There are multiple places I can buy a salad, which creates competition to force down prices. With a book (or music), there is only a single source for that particular book. To use the salad analogy, it would be as if only one restaurant offered salads. If you didn't like the price of the salad, you only had the option of getting a sandwich elsewhere. That's some amount of price competition, but not the same way.
Personally, I think it'd be interesting if production and distribution of media had to be split by law -- both couldn't be owned by the same people.
Try taking a black box that you put water in one side and gold comes out the other and replicating it.
It's not a black box. It's a very transparent box, with a small corner that's black. So what if certain Microsoft apps might not run at first? I'm perfectly fine with starting with an operating system that was compatible with every third party app, and only certain Microsoft apps. The biggie is reproducing the driver model so that all third party hardware works.
Microsoft will hit them with a broadside of patent lawsuits.
Possibly true, and the effort will certainly need a war chest for the lawyers. However, Microsoft is vulnerable. If there's no way to get around a patent, they'll HAVE to license their patents in reasonable terms, or they'll be hit with an easy to prove antitrust suit. It's pretty clearly in the interests of the consumer to allow a competitor in the market.
I'm not saying it would be easy, but clearly that's what the world needs.
The problem is that to such a company would have to actually work on the Hard Bits; configuration, installation, maintenance, application and service interoperability...
Hence the need for balls and a deep wallet. It's incredible that VCs can throw around hundreds of millions of dollars on WebVan, but can't fund a company to take on Microsoft directly. The upside potential is monstrously huge, and Microsoft is incredibly vulnerable. What keeps Microsoft in business is their application base. How many copies could this Company X sell with a tagline, "Absolutely, positively, 100% compatible -- only better. Give up nothing, except mediocrity."
I don't think it is legally possible to make a 100% windows clone....nevermind that those with the skills to do it would not want to.
Of course it is. Lest you forget, that's exactly what the Wine project is, not to mention "mini clones" like the (name escapes me) product that allows MS Office to run on Linux. I'm just frustrated that no one throws a ton of money at the idea and does it "for real". Like it or not, Windows is the defacto industry standard desktop-application API.
The Vista Content Protection specification could very well constitute the longest suicide note in history.
If hysterical stuff like this is the best the anti-Microsoft forces can come up with (and this guy isn't the first one, just the latest in a long line of hysterical essays), it's pretty clear that Microsoft ain't that bad as a company, despite what some people want to believe. Maybe, just maybe, if you have to resort to that kind of rhetoric, maybe your position isn't that strong?
Disclaimer: I don't hate Microsoft. I am, however, frequently annoyed by their mediocrity, and unbelievably frustrated that someone doesn't have the balls to start a company dedicated to making an absolutely, positively 100%-compatible Windows clone based on a Unix-like operating system.