There are quite a few operating systems and bolt-ons that do that already. It's probably the case that anything that doesn't work in DOSBox won't work in PC-MOS/386 either because it almost certainly requires direct access to hardware.
Some background: in the mid-eighties Intel released the 80386, which was their first 32 bit CPU and probably the first general purpose 808x family CPU they had made since the 8080 that wasn't horribly hobbled by kludges (it had compatibility modes for prior CPUs, but the selling feature was the pure 32 bit mode.)
The problem? There wasn't an operating system for it. Xenix was an obvious fit, but was too expensive. Microsoft and IBM were trying to figure out what to do with it and were avoiding using the pure 32 bit side. The other 32 bit operating systems were generally proprietary - you weren't going to get Commodore, Apple, or DEC to port AmigaOS, MacOS, or VMS to the PC, even assuming they could get the hardware working. (Well, actually MacOS was eventually ported to the PC, internally, though that was never released publicly. Look up Project Star Trek.)
Into the void came companies like the makers of PC MOS who released operating systems loosely inspired by DOS. Which... didn't go anywhere. Partially because they just weren't compelling, and partially because they were nobodies. In the mean time Microsoft and Quarterdeck released bolt-ons to DOS and DOS/Windows that used some of the 386's enhancements to improve 16 bit applications. But nothing that encouraged anyone to write 32 bit applications.
It wasn't until the early nineties that Microsoft and IBM released consumer level operating systems that made full use of the 386's 32 bit mode. Microsoft released the Win32 API, built in to NT, and released as a bolt-on to Windows 3.x, and IBM released OS/2 2.0 (yeah, OS/2 1.0 was 16 bit...) And it wasn't until 1995 that they started seriously pushing 32 bit operating systems (IBM's Warp, Windows 95, the latter winning.)
So it took about 10 years for PC users to finally be given fully 32 bit computers - that is, hardware and software. Which is astonishing, given Apple, Commodore, Atari, and even f---ing Sinclair, were doing this for consumers in 1984.
As a note, why should these people hop in front of all the other people that are legally trying to get into the US?
Because they're here already, have already made lives for themselves, are already integrated into society, and have done nothing wrong, and because sending them back to a country they barely know if at all would be horrifically cruel.
Also there's no line. Letting 100,000 Dreamers stay here does not prevent others from coming in or delay their entrance. Quite the reverse actually: if the authorities are tied up deporting people, they have fewer resources to manage normal immigration.
Generally speaking deterrents work best if they punish people who committed the crimes, not their victims. And let's be clear here: children to the US illegally and left them here without legal support are the victims, not the perpetrators. Punishing them isn't just unjust, it's utterly evil.
So if you buy a stereo off some guy on craigslist, and it turns out to be stolen, and the cops come to your door, they should be allowed to imprison you for several months, or maybe years, and turn your life upside down, destroying it completely, because someone else stole something and that makes it your fault?
You're hung up on racism==bad so if lots of people do it it can't be bad therefore it isn't racism
This is a major problem right now. Take a look at the number of threads right now along the lines of:
Person A: "Muslims refugees are invading Europe and raping their white women."
Person B: "That's racist bullshit dude"
Person A: "How DARE you call me a racist! Liberal ((((SJWs)))) calling people who just hate Muslims, Blacks, and Messicans is EXACTLY why we voted for Trump."
They don't like it when you call them the word that actually describes what they're doing because, well, it has negative connotations. They understand the word means something bad, but for some reason have a block about the fact that in order to avoid being described by the word, you have to, you know, not do the things the word describes.
And, you know, that's fine. If cameras don't deter bad behavior, so be it. But in that case, FFS, use the footage, both against criminals who otherwise benefit from the ambiguity the lack of footage would bring, and against bad cops.
Cameras aren't just about deterring bad behavior, they're also about being able to reliably deal with he said/she said situations where there are severe consequences for believing one party over the other.
Well, you apparently didn't read the article correctly. The article asserts that they do have data. Here's what you missed because you didn't read the article correctly:
So how can Consumer Reports predict the cars reliability?
"What we have is a lot of data from the Tesla Model S," said Fisher. "That gives us a little more confidence in the Tesla Model 3."
In addition, Fisher expects the simplicity of the Model 3 compared with Tesla's other vehicles means the car should have fewer problems.
Now, don't get me wrong, you may not feel that's enough data. But apparently CR was asked and they gave the best answer they could, namely that a car they hadn't seen would be average in reliability, based upon (1) previous experience of the same manufacturer, and (2) knowledge of the design mentality for this vehicle.
Two things that would have been reasonable to complain about: 1. The fact a journalist asked CR about a car they haven't yet had a chance to review, and 2. the fact the journalist then published a story about CR's answers.
The vast majority of Republicans considered McCain a Republican in 2008 when they tried to elect him President, and his views haven't changed before or after that. You can't really get more "Endorsed by a Party" than "Being our guy for President."
He didn't call for anonymous political speech to be criminalized. He called for anonymous political paid advertising to be banned. There's a massive difference between the two.
but there was a time say 10 years ago where they had flooded google's search results with topics matching lots of technical searches and the solutions were behind a paywall.
Nope, that's what I was just addressing. They were never behind a paywall, just "hidden" at the bottom of the page in such a way that you were deterred from scrolling there.
They had to include the content in their pages, otherwise Google wouldn't index it.
Expert Sex Change always had the information available to non-subscribers, but hidden at the bottom in a way you'd think it wasn't there (because if it wasn't there, Google wouldn't index it.) So if you come across a result that might be relevant, from them (after, no doubt, fifteen pages of results from Stack Overflow), that's what you can use.
Sometimes, but I've seen them used as an annoyance you can "turn off" for a fixed monthly fee - they're common on websites that, for example, let you download mods for games but force you to wait 30 seconds for a "free server".
First of all, most respectable websites will never do anything like that.
Define "respectable websites" using a definition that isn't circular. There literally is not a single website associated with a respectable organization, outside of maybe Google, I've used that hasn't, at some time, implemented at least one, and often ALL, of the following (not simultaneously, thank god.)
1. Pop-ups
2. Javascript DOM modals
3. Javascript DOM modals that appear when you scroll the page
4. Flash Ads
5. Autoplaying video
6. Autoplaying video that moves on the screen when you try to scroll past it and cannot be paused
With the exception of 1 and 4, ALL of these are actually becoming MORE popular. They are all inherently user hostile, and users complain about them to no effect.
And you're telling me they won't do Bitcoin mining? Pull the other one.
This, "I NEED someone to build a monstrous internal battery phone" that very few people will actually buy comes from people with rigid mentalities that refuse to adapt.
He's not asking for a monstrous internal battery phone, he's asking for a battery life of longer than one day, which used to be standard and would be incredibly easy to implement.
He doesn't have a way to "adapt" because your half baked "solution" isn't available for 99% of phones.
He's also asking for something that huge numbers of people ask for, indicating that there is a market, it's just inertia from the mobile device manufacturers who refuse to believe anyone would want anything other than a thin phone. The fact that the first thing anyone does after getting a thin phone is to buy a fat case for it should tell the manufacturers that, actually, virtually nobody buys a phone because it's thin, but unfortunately you're taking about an entire industry that's disappeared up it's own rectum.
The telcos have absolutely nothing to do with updates for Android phones, with the exceptions of those that they themselves have branded. It's the manufacturers who are responsible. Your comments were sort-of true for the previous generation of feature phones, but Android devices aren't something telcos have control over.
The problem here is that manufacturers have few incentives, apparently, to keep Android devices up to date.
It should probably be under a dollar, those adapters cost nearly nothing to make.
Also does the dongle have a pass-through? Because if you can't charge and listen to music at the same time then the dongle is only dealing with part of the problem.
The US rail industry actually encouraged cars and car-only suburbanization at one point, because they saw it the way you and the other idealists do: people would use their cars to drive to the stations, and then take the trains to their destinations.
That's not what happens. People don't get in a car to start a journey.
What is the incentive to to take a SDC to a subway station instead of where you want to go?
the humans are no longer coders, they will instead be writing specifications for the code that the AI will write
And in what language will we be writing these specifications?
I've been "writing specifications for code a machine will write" for a long time. That is to say, I haven't written in assembly for quite some time, and most of my coding is done using programming languages converted into assembly by compilers.
So what you're saying is that there'll be no changes to my job.
There was no Internet for public discussion, so if the movie wasn't awesome there was no word of mouth (good or bad).
If the Internet were required for "word of mouth" the phrase wouldn't be "word of mouth"!
I've never known a time when there wasn't word of mouth, we've changed how we socialize but we haven't changed the fact we socialize. We also have always had access to movie reviews almost since the birth of cinema - true, we couldn't aggregate over a hundred, but the two or three we saw in the newspapers and magazines we read usually gave us a clue.
Star Wars is a famous example of a movie that actually became successful due to WoM. And that's back from 1977. Fox really didn't know how to market what they had on their hands, it ended up being people telling their friends it was awesome that made it a success.
Slashdot Mirror
There are quite a few operating systems and bolt-ons that do that already. It's probably the case that anything that doesn't work in DOSBox won't work in PC-MOS/386 either because it almost certainly requires direct access to hardware.
Some background: in the mid-eighties Intel released the 80386, which was their first 32 bit CPU and probably the first general purpose 808x family CPU they had made since the 8080 that wasn't horribly hobbled by kludges (it had compatibility modes for prior CPUs, but the selling feature was the pure 32 bit mode.)
The problem? There wasn't an operating system for it. Xenix was an obvious fit, but was too expensive. Microsoft and IBM were trying to figure out what to do with it and were avoiding using the pure 32 bit side. The other 32 bit operating systems were generally proprietary - you weren't going to get Commodore, Apple, or DEC to port AmigaOS, MacOS, or VMS to the PC, even assuming they could get the hardware working. (Well, actually MacOS was eventually ported to the PC, internally, though that was never released publicly. Look up Project Star Trek.)
Into the void came companies like the makers of PC MOS who released operating systems loosely inspired by DOS. Which... didn't go anywhere. Partially because they just weren't compelling, and partially because they were nobodies. In the mean time Microsoft and Quarterdeck released bolt-ons to DOS and DOS/Windows that used some of the 386's enhancements to improve 16 bit applications. But nothing that encouraged anyone to write 32 bit applications.
It wasn't until the early nineties that Microsoft and IBM released consumer level operating systems that made full use of the 386's 32 bit mode. Microsoft released the Win32 API, built in to NT, and released as a bolt-on to Windows 3.x, and IBM released OS/2 2.0 (yeah, OS/2 1.0 was 16 bit...) And it wasn't until 1995 that they started seriously pushing 32 bit operating systems (IBM's Warp, Windows 95, the latter winning.)
So it took about 10 years for PC users to finally be given fully 32 bit computers - that is, hardware and software. Which is astonishing, given Apple, Commodore, Atari, and even f---ing Sinclair, were doing this for consumers in 1984.
Because they're here already, have already made lives for themselves, are already integrated into society, and have done nothing wrong, and because sending them back to a country they barely know if at all would be horrifically cruel.
Also there's no line. Letting 100,000 Dreamers stay here does not prevent others from coming in or delay their entrance. Quite the reverse actually: if the authorities are tied up deporting people, they have fewer resources to manage normal immigration.
BTW I am a legal immigrant.
Generally speaking deterrents work best if they punish people who committed the crimes, not their victims. And let's be clear here: children to the US illegally and left them here without legal support are the victims, not the perpetrators. Punishing them isn't just unjust, it's utterly evil.
If the Dreamers just get the same rights as citizens, then the tech industry will be no better or worse off than anyone else. This isn't like H1-Bs.
So if you buy a stereo off some guy on craigslist, and it turns out to be stolen, and the cops come to your door, they should be allowed to imprison you for several months, or maybe years, and turn your life upside down, destroying it completely, because someone else stole something and that makes it your fault?
This is a major problem right now. Take a look at the number of threads right now along the lines of:
Person A: "Muslims refugees are invading Europe and raping their white women."
Person B: "That's racist bullshit dude"
Person A: "How DARE you call me a racist! Liberal ((((SJWs)))) calling people who just hate Muslims, Blacks, and Messicans is EXACTLY why we voted for Trump."
They don't like it when you call them the word that actually describes what they're doing because, well, it has negative connotations. They understand the word means something bad, but for some reason have a block about the fact that in order to avoid being described by the word, you have to, you know, not do the things the word describes.
And, you know, that's fine. If cameras don't deter bad behavior, so be it. But in that case, FFS, use the footage, both against criminals who otherwise benefit from the ambiguity the lack of footage would bring, and against bad cops.
Cameras aren't just about deterring bad behavior, they're also about being able to reliably deal with he said/she said situations where there are severe consequences for believing one party over the other.
Let's test that...
Well, you apparently didn't read the article correctly. The article asserts that they do have data. Here's what you missed because you didn't read the article correctly:
Now, don't get me wrong, you may not feel that's enough data. But apparently CR was asked and they gave the best answer they could, namely that a car they hadn't seen would be average in reliability, based upon (1) previous experience of the same manufacturer, and (2) knowledge of the design mentality for this vehicle.
Two things that would have been reasonable to complain about: 1. The fact a journalist asked CR about a car they haven't yet had a chance to review, and 2. the fact the journalist then published a story about CR's answers.
The vast majority of Republicans considered McCain a Republican in 2008 when they tried to elect him President, and his views haven't changed before or after that. You can't really get more "Endorsed by a Party" than "Being our guy for President."
He didn't call for anonymous political speech to be criminalized. He called for anonymous political paid advertising to be banned. There's a massive difference between the two.
Can you explain how keeping copies of political ads and the criteria used to determine who should see them would result in persecution?
Nope, that's what I was just addressing. They were never behind a paywall, just "hidden" at the bottom of the page in such a way that you were deterred from scrolling there.
They had to include the content in their pages, otherwise Google wouldn't index it.
Expert Sex Change always had the information available to non-subscribers, but hidden at the bottom in a way you'd think it wasn't there (because if it wasn't there, Google wouldn't index it.) So if you come across a result that might be relevant, from them (after, no doubt, fifteen pages of results from Stack Overflow), that's what you can use.
Sometimes, but I've seen them used as an annoyance you can "turn off" for a fixed monthly fee - they're common on websites that, for example, let you download mods for games but force you to wait 30 seconds for a "free server".
I imagine the GP was talking about that.
Define "respectable websites" using a definition that isn't circular. There literally is not a single website associated with a respectable organization, outside of maybe Google, I've used that hasn't, at some time, implemented at least one, and often ALL, of the following (not simultaneously, thank god.)
1. Pop-ups
2. Javascript DOM modals
3. Javascript DOM modals that appear when you scroll the page
4. Flash Ads
5. Autoplaying video
6. Autoplaying video that moves on the screen when you try to scroll past it and cannot be paused
With the exception of 1 and 4, ALL of these are actually becoming MORE popular. They are all inherently user hostile, and users complain about them to no effect.
And you're telling me they won't do Bitcoin mining? Pull the other one.
He's not asking for a monstrous internal battery phone, he's asking for a battery life of longer than one day, which used to be standard and would be incredibly easy to implement.
He doesn't have a way to "adapt" because your half baked "solution" isn't available for 99% of phones.
He's also asking for something that huge numbers of people ask for, indicating that there is a market, it's just inertia from the mobile device manufacturers who refuse to believe anyone would want anything other than a thin phone. The fact that the first thing anyone does after getting a thin phone is to buy a fat case for it should tell the manufacturers that, actually, virtually nobody buys a phone because it's thin, but unfortunately you're taking about an entire industry that's disappeared up it's own rectum.
Dunno about the GP, but I want a usable keyboard, which means landscape.
It's actually the frequency that causes the damage. I mean, 50 cycles per second can sting a little, but 60 hurts.
Thanks, I'll be here all week, don't forget to tip your waiter.
On the other hand, have you ever stood on one?
Makes Lego feel like a foot massage...
The telcos have absolutely nothing to do with updates for Android phones, with the exceptions of those that they themselves have branded. It's the manufacturers who are responsible. Your comments were sort-of true for the previous generation of feature phones, but Android devices aren't something telcos have control over.
The problem here is that manufacturers have few incentives, apparently, to keep Android devices up to date.
It should probably be under a dollar, those adapters cost nearly nothing to make.
Also does the dongle have a pass-through? Because if you can't charge and listen to music at the same time then the dongle is only dealing with part of the problem.
The US rail industry actually encouraged cars and car-only suburbanization at one point, because they saw it the way you and the other idealists do: people would use their cars to drive to the stations, and then take the trains to their destinations.
That's not what happens. People don't get in a car to start a journey.
What is the incentive to to take a SDC to a subway station instead of where you want to go?
And in what language will we be writing these specifications?
I've been "writing specifications for code a machine will write" for a long time. That is to say, I haven't written in assembly for quite some time, and most of my coding is done using programming languages converted into assembly by compilers.
So what you're saying is that there'll be no changes to my job.
If the Internet were required for "word of mouth" the phrase wouldn't be "word of mouth"!
I've never known a time when there wasn't word of mouth, we've changed how we socialize but we haven't changed the fact we socialize. We also have always had access to movie reviews almost since the birth of cinema - true, we couldn't aggregate over a hundred, but the two or three we saw in the newspapers and magazines we read usually gave us a clue.
Star Wars is a famous example of a movie that actually became successful due to WoM. And that's back from 1977. Fox really didn't know how to market what they had on their hands, it ended up being people telling their friends it was awesome that made it a success.
I too am not a bot FELLOW HUMAN.