Microsoft's Research department is at http://research.microsoft.com
Re:Hal: What will happen to us, Dave?
on
Dealers of Lightning
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Well, as somebody else who "lived and worked in the real world during the 70's-80's and other Bronze Age periods" I'd yhave to say that you're completely wrong.
Let's look at it:
Xerox PARC
Laser Printer
GUI
Context menus
WYSIWYG
Ethernet
CSMA/CD
Object Oriented Programming including:
Message Passing
Encapsulation
Inheritance
Late Binding
IDE
Desktop font support
Desktop publishing
Everybody Else Combined
Ink Jet Printer
Microprocessor based PCs
Spreadsheets
But I guess we "real world" types didn't find any use for the Xerox PARC stuff...
Re:The EMP Cruise Missile has arrived (rejected)
on
Dealers of Lightning
·
· Score: 1
Well, you didn't get your submission right to get it accepted here. It should have read:
The US military has developed the High Powered Microwave cruise missile, capable of generating 2 billion watts of power broadcast over an area off 1000 feet, perfect for those late night electronic barbeques. Does anybody know if these missiles use Linux?
or
The US military has developed the High Powered Microwave cruise missile, capable of generating 2 billion watts of power broadcast over an area off 1000 feet, perfect for those late night electronic barbeques. Bet Windows machines are really vulnerable.
The Microsoft statement says that Windows doesn't ship with the bug and no 3rd party driver shipped with Windows have the bug but if you build your own driver from their sample code in the Device Driver kit without changes then it is possible that your code could have the bug. And that they're changing the sample code to include the fix in the source.
Maybe drawing a conclusion based on what's written would be better than just "MS are weasels"
I'm not saying that it isn't an engineering achievement. It was also the first Boeing to be built directly from the CAD files with no prototype to test fit parts.
But it isn't inspiring. It doesn't make anybody go "wow!" and that wow factor is important beyond what the Boeing and Airbus management think.
Nope. The difference is that the IBMs and Boeings of the world have huge cash reserves to buffer out the experiments that don't work out. Unlike smaller companies, they CAN innovate with low risk and that they often don't is a failure of management, a failure of vision and a failure of courage.
People want to fly cheap. People want to fly fast. Airlines are the worst managed corporations on the planet. But, that doesn't change the economics. The Sonic Cruiser was an efficient, cheap to fly design. It used the same infrastructure as the current planes (same baggage carts, baggage containers, ramps, etc.) which is a big factor. And the airlines seem to be willing to upgrade some of that for the Airbus jumbo.
If consumers want to fly fast and cheap, give it to them.
BTW: Your $1000 is ludicrous and not related to the discussion. The Sonic Cruiser would cost a few percent more to run than a 7x7 at most. So the real question is whether people would pay $30 extra to fly on a new, cool jet that got them there a half hour sooner on a cross-country flight. I would. And that wouldn't happen anyway since the airlines didn't exactly give discounts for the equally good efficiency improvements in the 777. (Or have you found that 777 flights are cheaper than 767? I haven't.)
Except that Boeing was the company buying out competitors (Lockheed, McDonell/Douglas) and now is the only US manufacturer of commercial jets. As such, they're guaranteed to succeed since the strategic requirements of the US require there to be a US manufacturer of their products (or at least the military versions of the civilian products)
At worst, Boeing would have a different make up of their shareholders. Big deal. It's not as though new owners would do worse.
Nope. That's the number one rule of failing businesses. No great business was built by refusing to innovate but a lot of businesses have disappeared by "Don't fix what isn't broken" thinking.
Feel free to show a business that's succeeded by catering to the beancounters while refusing to innovate for the end-user. Really. Good luck in finding one.
Consumers will flock to an airline with innovative, cool, sexy planes. American Airlines was buying the first two years production of Sonic Cruisers just to keep their competitors from getting one. That wasn't for the 15% faster flight time, it was for the cachet of having a new, sexy fleet when everybody else's planes were stodgy, boring 707 clones. (And all the Boeing and Airbus planes designed in the last 30 years really the same generic plane to the consumer)
Airlines kill for differentiation and an exciting new plane is one hell of a differentiator.
Commercial airliners aren't built in secret. There are years of pre-announcements to get the sales from the airlines. Since a contract for a new fleet is planned up to a decade out, the PR for the new plane starts when it's still just a CAD model and some pretty paintings.
Nope. There's nothing to look forward to from Boeing until at least 2010 and probably longer. Innovation from them is just, flat out dead.
Innovative, exciting projects should never be cancelled.
Boeing used to make the inspiring projects that kids got excited about. And it worked as a business model. There isn't a plane that Boeing did that was risky and innovative that didn't pay off. The 707, 727, 737 and 747 were all radical for their day. And these innovations built Boeing and excited a generation of kids in the 1960s. And these risky designs were hugely successful against a huge number of competitors.
From 1970 on, though, Boeing became risk-averse and has built nothing but 707 look-alikes that have been marginally successful even when they only had one competitor in Airbus.
It's also worth noting that the lack of innovation happened first and the lack of competitors later. It wasn't a lack of competition that killed innovation. It was a lack of innovation that allowed the bean counters to drive each other out of a generic business.
Boeing sure knows how to keep people excited about their products. Why, their new five year product will look exactly like a 767/757/707/Airbus but will get up to 15% better gas mileage. I can see all the little kids lining up to build models of that one to hang in their bedrooms.
Back when Boeing was actually run by people who loved building airliners there were products designed for more than corporate accountants.
Let's look at the Boeing Commercial Jets and what made the cool from a consumer point of view. What got people caring about the planes they flew in. What made Boeing a household name.
707 - First Really Successful Jetliner!
727 - Three Engines! In the Tail! Rear Exit Ramp Built In! WhisperJet Quiet!
737 - Tiny! Landed at little airports where there'd never been jets! Had oval engines!
747 - Huge! Two stories with a spiral staircase! Had a humped body when every other plane was a boring tube!
757 - Boring. Looks like a 20 year old 707.
767 - Boring. Looks like a 20 year old 707.
777 - Boring. Looks like a 30 year old 707.
747X - New look! Super-huge mega-jet! Killed Sonic Cruiser - Radical new design! Canards! Higher speed! Killed High Efficiency - Boring. Will look like a 45 year old 707 with winglets.
The lack of innovation started long ago and blaming it on short term downturns and 9/11 is bogus. American was excited enough about the Sonic Cruiser to pre-order the first two years production just to keep it out of the hands of their competitors. The airlines are desparate for some way to differentiate themselves. Boeing and Airbus, on the other hand, are desperate to prove they can build the same, identical, boring, generic products. Odd, how they're so risk averse when every risk they've taken paid off and every boring generic plane is in a tight fight against Airbus' boring generic planes.
Oh, and as for the efficiency increases, we've seen those in the 737 and 747 upgrades. Perhaps Boeing needs to look around to see why the 737 and 747 fleets are still out there. Perhaps its because those innovative planes actually did something new.
Nah. In quantum terms, there's an equal probability that 2002-1900=102 as 2002-1900=100 or 2002-1900=98. In fact, it could be said that every year is simultaneously the 100th anniversary.
Yes, I'm tired of quantum theory being used as a justification for bad science...
What they really want is the ability to ask: "How do I do xxxx in Linux?" and not get the answer: "Please tell me the following 85 things about your configuration:"
And that is what standardization is about. Not about forcing a single choice but about having a single default that can reliably be trusted by users who haven't learned enough to change the defaults.
Of course, some of us were around then. Nixon came into office with a "secret plan to end the war which consisted of stalling four years so he could run on that again. He didn't bother with ending the war until his second term. What he did do was to lie more about it. (Look up Secret Bombing of Cambodia while you're doing your homework)
So. To answer the question. Yes. It was the Nixon Administration who was putting the money where they wanted it. And science wasn't where they wanted it since it didn't after the viewers dropped off, it didn't help Nixon's PR image.
Correct on some of it. IBM had the source but used it not to create their own Windows (They sold an IBM labeled OEM version of the MS product) but used it to create the Windows runtime in OS/2.
They didn't use the Watcom C compiler. They had their own. Again, they didn't build their own Windows. What you're probably remembering is that on some programs OS/2 could run WinApps faster than Windows could. (But not for most)
Almost. MS and PC DOS 3.x could do all the networking stuff. PC-DOS 4.0 was written by IBM to support a character based CUI shell. They rewrote most of the OS in C rather than MASM and it was a BUGGY PIG. Microsoft eventually released MS-DOS 4.01 which was a MASM based, small, clean version with the new features.
Nope. NT was originally going to be OS/2 3.0 with MS working on the 3.x code tree and IBM working on the 2.x series.
After the divorce, IBM got OS/2 2.x and Microsoft got Windows and OS/2 3.x and renamed OS/2 3.0 (and reworked it for better Windows compatibility) to be Windows NT 3.1
I'm guessing that when people here are saying that the text recognition is between 75 and 90% what they're really saying is that 75-90% of the time it gets everything they wrote correct.
That's REALLY different than meaning it got 75-95% of the characters correct. (75-90% word recognition alone is more like 95-99% character recognition and 75-90% total recognition is 99%+)
The Tablet PC isn't what Microsoft is offering for being comfortable working on the couch. The couch PC is the Windows Powered Smart Display which is designed to let you use your existing PC on the couch by undocking the display and using the existing system remotely with a stylus.
The Tablet PC is targeted at people who don't work at a desk and don't have a place to sit down and type.
MilSpec Ruggedized Windows Tablet
on
Examining a Tablet PC
·
· Score: 3, Informative
There's already a full ruggedized version. The iX104-TPC from Xplore Technologies (iX104 Page) which is built to Military Environmental Test Standards [MIL-STD 810F] so I think it could handle a dock worker. Especially since Xplore already builds for that market and understands what's needed.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's Research department is at http://research.microsoft.com
Let's look at it:
Xerox PARC
Everybody Else Combined
But I guess we "real world" types didn't find any use for the Xerox PARC stuff...
The US military has developed the High Powered Microwave cruise missile, capable of generating 2 billion watts of power broadcast over an area off 1000 feet, perfect for those late night electronic barbeques. Does anybody know if these missiles use Linux?
or
The US military has developed the High Powered Microwave cruise missile, capable of generating 2 billion watts of power broadcast over an area off 1000 feet, perfect for those late night electronic barbeques. Bet Windows machines are really vulnerable.
Then it would have been a topic here...
The Microsoft statement says that Windows doesn't ship with the bug and no 3rd party driver shipped with Windows have the bug but if you build your own driver from their sample code in the Device Driver kit without changes then it is possible that your code could have the bug. And that they're changing the sample code to include the fix in the source. Maybe drawing a conclusion based on what's written would be better than just "MS are weasels"
I'm not saying that it isn't an engineering achievement. It was also the first Boeing to be built directly from the CAD files with no prototype to test fit parts.
But it isn't inspiring. It doesn't make anybody go "wow!" and that wow factor is important beyond what the Boeing and Airbus management think.
Nope. The difference is that the IBMs and Boeings of the world have huge cash reserves to buffer out the experiments that don't work out. Unlike smaller companies, they CAN innovate with low risk and that they often don't is a failure of management, a failure of vision and a failure of courage.
People want to fly cheap. People want to fly fast. Airlines are the worst managed corporations on the planet. But, that doesn't change the economics. The Sonic Cruiser was an efficient, cheap to fly design. It used the same infrastructure as the current planes (same baggage carts, baggage containers, ramps, etc.) which is a big factor. And the airlines seem to be willing to upgrade some of that for the Airbus jumbo.
If consumers want to fly fast and cheap, give it to them.
BTW: Your $1000 is ludicrous and not related to the discussion. The Sonic Cruiser would cost a few percent more to run than a 7x7 at most. So the real question is whether people would pay $30 extra to fly on a new, cool jet that got them there a half hour sooner on a cross-country flight. I would. And that wouldn't happen anyway since the airlines didn't exactly give discounts for the equally good efficiency improvements in the 777. (Or have you found that 777 flights are cheaper than 767? I haven't.)
Except that Boeing was the company buying out competitors (Lockheed, McDonell/Douglas) and now is the only US manufacturer of commercial jets. As such, they're guaranteed to succeed since the strategic requirements of the US require there to be a US manufacturer of their products (or at least the military versions of the civilian products)
At worst, Boeing would have a different make up of their shareholders. Big deal. It's not as though new owners would do worse.
Nope. That's the number one rule of failing businesses. No great business was built by refusing to innovate but a lot of businesses have disappeared by "Don't fix what isn't broken" thinking.
Feel free to show a business that's succeeded by catering to the beancounters while refusing to innovate for the end-user. Really. Good luck in finding one.
Innovative products succeed if they're competitive at all.
Successful and innovative to the consumer:
707
727
737
747
Marginally successful and boring to the consumer:
757
767
777
Why do people think that if a product is innovative it must be a moneyloser? History doesn't show that.
Consumers will flock to an airline with innovative, cool, sexy planes. American Airlines was buying the first two years production of Sonic Cruisers just to keep their competitors from getting one. That wasn't for the 15% faster flight time, it was for the cachet of having a new, sexy fleet when everybody else's planes were stodgy, boring 707 clones. (And all the Boeing and Airbus planes designed in the last 30 years really the same generic plane to the consumer)
Airlines kill for differentiation and an exciting new plane is one hell of a differentiator.
Commercial airliners aren't built in secret. There are years of pre-announcements to get the sales from the airlines. Since a contract for a new fleet is planned up to a decade out, the PR for the new plane starts when it's still just a CAD model and some pretty paintings.
Nope. There's nothing to look forward to from Boeing until at least 2010 and probably longer. Innovation from them is just, flat out dead.
Innovative, exciting projects should never be cancelled.
Boeing used to make the inspiring projects that kids got excited about. And it worked as a business model. There isn't a plane that Boeing did that was risky and innovative that didn't pay off. The 707, 727, 737 and 747 were all radical for their day. And these innovations built Boeing and excited a generation of kids in the 1960s. And these risky designs were hugely successful against a huge number of competitors.
From 1970 on, though, Boeing became risk-averse and has built nothing but 707 look-alikes that have been marginally successful even when they only had one competitor in Airbus.
It's also worth noting that the lack of innovation happened first and the lack of competitors later. It wasn't a lack of competition that killed innovation. It was a lack of innovation that allowed the bean counters to drive each other out of a generic business.
Boeing sure knows how to keep people excited about their products. Why, their new five year product will look exactly like a 767/757/707/Airbus but will get up to 15% better gas mileage. I can see all the little kids lining up to build models of that one to hang in their bedrooms.
Back when Boeing was actually run by people who loved building airliners there were products designed for more than corporate accountants.
Let's look at the Boeing Commercial Jets and what made the cool from a consumer point of view. What got people caring about the planes they flew in. What made Boeing a household name.
707 - First Really Successful Jetliner!
727 - Three Engines! In the Tail! Rear Exit Ramp Built In! WhisperJet Quiet!
737 - Tiny! Landed at little airports where there'd never been jets! Had oval engines!
747 - Huge! Two stories with a spiral staircase! Had a humped body when every other plane was a boring tube!
757 - Boring. Looks like a 20 year old 707.
767 - Boring. Looks like a 20 year old 707.
777 - Boring. Looks like a 30 year old 707.
747X - New look! Super-huge mega-jet! Killed
Sonic Cruiser - Radical new design! Canards! Higher speed! Killed
High Efficiency - Boring. Will look like a 45 year old 707 with winglets.
The lack of innovation started long ago and blaming it on short term downturns and 9/11 is bogus. American was excited enough about the Sonic Cruiser to pre-order the first two years production just to keep it out of the hands of their competitors. The airlines are desparate for some way to differentiate themselves. Boeing and Airbus, on the other hand, are desperate to prove they can build the same, identical, boring, generic products. Odd, how they're so risk averse when every risk they've taken paid off and every boring generic plane is in a tight fight against Airbus' boring generic planes.
Oh, and as for the efficiency increases, we've seen those in the 737 and 747 upgrades. Perhaps Boeing needs to look around to see why the 737 and 747 fleets are still out there. Perhaps its because those innovative planes actually did something new.
Nah. In quantum terms, there's an equal probability that 2002-1900=102 as 2002-1900=100 or 2002-1900=98. In fact, it could be said that every year is simultaneously the 100th anniversary.
Yes, I'm tired of quantum theory being used as a justification for bad science...
What they really want is the ability to ask: "How do I do xxxx in Linux?" and not get the answer: "Please tell me the following 85 things about your configuration:"
And that is what standardization is about. Not about forcing a single choice but about having a single default that can reliably be trusted by users who haven't learned enough to change the defaults.
Of course, some of us were around then. Nixon came into office with a "secret plan to end the war which consisted of stalling four years so he could run on that again. He didn't bother with ending the war until his second term. What he did do was to lie more about it. (Look up Secret Bombing of Cambodia while you're doing your homework)
So. To answer the question. Yes. It was the Nixon Administration who was putting the money where they wanted it. And science wasn't where they wanted it since it didn't after the viewers dropped off, it didn't help Nixon's PR image.
Not really. The real peak was 1968 around the time of the Tet offensive.
Of course, we still haven't actually paid for the Vietnam war. We just borrowed for it. (Note the national debt figures)
Correct on some of it. IBM had the source but used it not to create their own Windows (They sold an IBM labeled OEM version of the MS product) but used it to create the Windows runtime in OS/2. They didn't use the Watcom C compiler. They had their own. Again, they didn't build their own Windows. What you're probably remembering is that on some programs OS/2 could run WinApps faster than Windows could. (But not for most)
Almost. MS and PC DOS 3.x could do all the networking stuff. PC-DOS 4.0 was written by IBM to support a character based CUI shell. They rewrote most of the OS in C rather than MASM and it was a BUGGY PIG. Microsoft eventually released MS-DOS 4.01 which was a MASM based, small, clean version with the new features.
Nope. NT was originally going to be OS/2 3.0 with MS working on the 3.x code tree and IBM working on the 2.x series.
After the divorce, IBM got OS/2 2.x and Microsoft got Windows and OS/2 3.x and renamed OS/2 3.0 (and reworked it for better Windows compatibility) to be Windows NT 3.1
I'm guessing that when people here are saying that the text recognition is between 75 and 90% what they're really saying is that 75-90% of the time it gets everything they wrote correct. That's REALLY different than meaning it got 75-95% of the characters correct. (75-90% word recognition alone is more like 95-99% character recognition and 75-90% total recognition is 99%+)
The Tablet PC isn't what Microsoft is offering for being comfortable working on the couch. The couch PC is the Windows Powered Smart Display which is designed to let you use your existing PC on the couch by undocking the display and using the existing system remotely with a stylus. The Tablet PC is targeted at people who don't work at a desk and don't have a place to sit down and type.
There's already a full ruggedized version. The iX104-TPC from Xplore Technologies (iX104 Page) which is built to Military Environmental Test Standards [MIL-STD 810F] so I think it could handle a dock worker. Especially since Xplore already builds for that market and understands what's needed.