Do they? Do they also want to eat babies and kill all the black people?
Or is that merely a bigoted argument sold to and bought only by the gullible?
Try again please.
Both sides of the isle have families. Both have children. Both want good things for the future of the nation.
No sizable portion of the nation wants bad things. So do us all a favor and cut the bigoted arguments unless your real objective here is to identify yourself as a bigot.
You said you don't have patience to have the discussion. That is if anything a forfeit on your part by default.
Or will you now retract that and have a discussion.
Stupid rhetorical games with some cargo cult seeming of wit won't work on me. It neither impresses nor intimidates me. Either engage or forfeit by default.
Keep your delusions about the moral integrity of that cliche if you insist. That isn't my primary concern.
Rather, my concern is that for the movement to have ANY credibility it must not be a partisan agent.
I do care about the environment. And by allowing the movement to be co-opted by partisan agents they instantly and unavoidably make themselves enemies of those partisan groups. If they were no so linked then they could make alliances on both sides and work to common goals.
The failure of the environmental movement has largely come about because of this strategic error.
I suspect you're just going to respond to this by asking for citations for every statement while of course carefully making none yourself. That is not a discussion in good faith.
Either participate or drop all pretenses of participation.
Which is why China has amongst the cleanest air and lowest pollution in the world.
Right?
Or is the statement idiotic.
The question is rhetorical.
If anything is a consistent argument against democracy it is ignorant and asinine opinions of average people in democracies.
Sadly, totalitarian leaders are no less immune to idiocy.
I really don't have the solution to the problem. But something that filtered the voting rolls to some extent might be needed if we're increasingly turning into an idiocracy.
So... you can see how that would effectively cause most of the opposition to feel vindicated that the whole thing is just a ploy to promote radical leftist redistributionalism.
Look, if you ACTUALLY care about the environment, then there is no way to get cooperation unless there is no perception of political bias. If you can't do that, then really you can't do anything. As pointed out in the article, communism actually has a terrible environmental record. So not even that would work.
Making Al Gore your front man was a strategic error. Saying the debate was over just meant a lot of minds closed instantly in response and decided then and there that you were wrong.
If you care... you'll reengage with humility, mutual respect, and patience. The only reason to not do that is because you refuse to control your ego, refuse to treat people you need the cooperation of with respect, and lack the intellectual patience to go through a matter in the time required.
And if that is the case... you don't really care.
I care. I have my own biases but I am willing to humbly go through the matter acknowledging what I don't know or understand, showing common courtesy to people that I might not agree with or trust, and patiently going through the matter step by step.
Anyone that cares must be willing to do that. Anyone that is not willing to can't possibly care because they've put their own petty personal prejudices above the vitality of the global ecosystem.
1. When factories in their territory suffer consistent brownouts and must supply their own power it is relevant. We don't compete as well here because while our systems don't brown out we also don't provide the power at a competitive rate. Increase capacity here and we win this issue.
2. its not just IP, its also thieves, property dispute, vandalism, etc. It goes as far as murder.
We had an issue not long ago where a US company in Russia was told to pay a special price for electricity for a retail store. If they didn't the power would be cut off. None of this was legal or official. it was just lawlessness.
You see that sort of thing in China and India as well.
3. No it is not zero.
4. We actually make a lot of things in the US. We still have substantial industrial capacity. We do especially well with high tech industrial machinary and medical gear. Anything very high quality where the customer doesn't mind paying a premium to make sure its done right. Its just eroding due to people being absolutely idiotic as regards labor and commerce policy.
Idiocy will undermine any empire. And the stubbornness and ignorance of many on the issue is killing us.
5. You're asking for facts that are at your fingertips. I don't need to show you how to use google. Asking me to show you where the sand is when you're standing at the beach doesn't strike me as a productive discussion. Either you're honestly interested and can find the information very easily or you're not. Either way... little point in my responding to that with graphs.
6. As to insurance, the issue is more that the employer is paying for it. Insurance itself is unavoidable. Even the people that advocate governments take care of everything are still advocating for insurance... its just government insurance. Your premiums paid in taxes.
You can't get away from it. Insurance is a good thing.
7. As to the non paycheck portion, this is merely your ignorance and I have little patience for debating people that are both ignorant of the fact and arrogant in their convictions.
So, since we likely have little to gain by continuing with each other... I bid you good day, sir.
The arguments against phone calls on planes seem to be mostly about the irritation factor of phone calls.
That is not a safety concern and therefore is not something the federal government needs to regulate.
NOTE just because the federal government says something is legal on a plane doesn't mean the airline needs to allow it.
Which means, the FCC can allow phones on the planes and then the airlines can decide if they're going to allow it themselves.
I agree phone calls would be annoying on a plane. However, I don't think most could credibly complain about texting or screwing around with a tablet.
Seriously, people need to learn the difference between something being bad enough that an establishment should discourage it and being bad enough that the federal government should make it a federal regulation/law.
Talking on a phone while flying while annoying is not worthy of a federal ban on the practice. Anyone advocating otherwise is either an intellectually lazy idiot that doesn't know what he is talking about or they're fascists. Sounds extreme but that's an extreme abuse of federal power for relatively petty purposes.
1. As to infrastructure, it all depends. Our distribution grid is actually pretty good. The rate of brownouts for example in the US is pretty good.
The issue is generation capacity which needs to be upgraded in the US. Drop a few nuclear reactors in key parts of the US and we'll be sell positioned.
2. Our legal system is actually much better then most other countries because we still largely have rule of law. The issue is that our system has become too complicated, too expensive, and too slow.
3. Labor is never zero.
4. If machines are made in the US it is harder for a foreign competitor to duplicate them because you haven't been paying them to literally make them in the same factory.
Many US companies have been running into this in china. They make something over there and the exact people they hired to make it start selling a knock off. If you don't teach them how to make it and pay them to gear up then its harder for them to start churning out knock offs.
5. There is positive job growth in those states including manufacturing. Were you correct, that would not be the case. It is the case so you're wrong.
6. I would agree. The real issue is hospital costs. But that is a situation that is enabled by insurance. The problem is that the patient has no incentive to control costs.
When you get medical care you're spending someone else's money on yourself.
To control medical costs, patients must spend THEIR money on themselves. The whole medical industry needs to disclose prices before treatment whenever possible, list prices openly so people can shop for treatment, and generally subject the whole system to market forces.
That said, what I am really talking about here in regards to the topic is aspects of employment that cost a company money yet the employee doesn't see in their pay check.
You don't want your pay reduced. That is reasonable. The company doesn't actually care where the savings come from so long as when all the numbers are added up they're paying a competitive price. What we need to do, is lower the non-paycheck portion of what the company pays per employee.
Actually we do seem to have exactly that situation.
The unemployment rate is going up and number of people that have been unemployed for a long enough period of time that the government stops counting them as unemployed has gone up.
You can bury your head in the sand as to the statistics but the US labor force is shrinking at a much faster rate then our population.
If labor were the only cost then you'd be correct.
We can help US competitiveness by doing a few things.
1. Lower non-labor costs of doing business in the US. Little things like helping companies with environmental and zoning regulations. NOT so they can pollute but so they can operate without being harassed by people using the law to forbid their operation. This sort of thing is very common in California where I live. Whenever people don't want something to be built, they find a species that would be negatively impacted by the construction. Using this method you can shut down anything. It is literally impossible to build anything anywhere on earth without potentially infringing on something's habitat.
2. Make sure companies can get reasonable access to utilities. Things like water, power, and sewage. Frequently industrial users face problems with the quantities they need being offered at reasonable prices. This is largely the result of many portions of the country not building sufficient water and power facilities such that they have no excess. Data centers have been having a problem with this lately because they can't get enough power from the grid at a competitive rate. This is unacceptable and raises the cost of doing business in the US if you ultimately have to build your own power station etc simply to keep the lights on. Is this the US or north korea? Fix it.
3. Go through the tax and regulation system and simplify it. I am not saying have them not follow the law or abuse things. Merely make the law easier to understand and less ambiguous. If you look at many companies they spend a not inconsiderable amount on compliance with the law. All of those people hired to do that is overhead. It makes things more expensive and the whole operation less attractive. In the last 10 years the proportion of payroll involved in managing paperwork for federal and state agencies has skyrocketed. Reduce the number of people needed to maintain compliance and the company might be able to operate on a larger scale. Its further not only the money, its the fear, the uncertainty, and the frustration. Corporations are not machines. They're human organizations and they do get annoyed.
4. Eliminate stupid taxes and fees that don't make any sense. The best example of this would be a tax currently levied against oil refiners for not including enough ethanol in their fuel. The problem is that if refineries put that amount in fuel, it will invalidate the warranty of cars that use it. As a result, they can either produce fuel that is fined or produce fuel that is worthless. Obviously they choose the first option. And the result is that everyone pays more for gas because the federal government is putting a big penalty fee on ALL gas refineries for not doing something that they cannot do. There are many examples of this sort of thing and you'll find specific examples in every industry. Ask a corporate accountant in any industry and they'll give you specifics.
The point is... the laws are frequently sloppy messes quickly conceived by people that didn't really care and then forgotten. The legal code is the ultimate spaghetti code. And it needs to be rationalized.
And really it doesn't serve anyone in the long run. In the short run it might be expedient for some. But the system is showing signs of systemic melt down which would ruin things for everyone. Everyone. Even the politicians.
Its not just the unions that are an issue. The unions are frankly a nonstarter at this point. Entirely non-competitive in most cases.
Which is why most new jobs especially factory jobs are in right to work states.
The unions have frankly negotiated themselves out of a job.
And they can talk about how safe and secure they are when they're unemployable. Boeing is leaving Washington state amongst other things because of this crap. Do you have any idea how expensive that is for them? How much they have invested there?
Think about how extreme the pressure would have to be to make relocating make sense.
So the unions in most cases are done. A few will survive through government subsidy like the auto unions currently and then there are a few rational unions that have never been unreasonable. Those might well survive. But the rest are already dead.
As to non-union labor laws... health insurance is an issue, various taxes are an issue... it gets specific on an industry by industry basis. But there is a lot of overhead from government at this point and you can see the difference it makes by looking at the states.
Some states have less overhead on business and without exception they all have much stronger job markets.
So connect the dots. Do you want to compromise or lose?
Because there is no winning with the current attitude. Its death... slow and sure.
We don't need to go that far. There are a lot of things going for the US.
We have superior infrastructure, more secure and reliable legal code, we have proximity to the actual corporate governance which makes administration cheaper, and there are various issues with securing intellectual property that are easier in the US then elsewhere.
The corps are actually hiring in parts of the US. Places like Georgia, the Carolinas, and Texas.
Do that along with making the insurance and medical costs of hiring someone less of a big deal and we'll if anything have an advantage.
Corporate America is making a very clear statement. They will not hire Americans under these rules and we can't make them.
We need to really do a gut check on a lot of our labor policies, taxes, and regulations that effect labor prices in the US and... then ask ourselves if we'd rather keep the laws as they are and accept high levels of permanent structural unemployment... or if we're willing to compromise to get people into careers.
The whole issue is very politically charged. A gaggle of people might well respond to this post calling me names for suggesting compromise here. But the thing is labor policies are irrelevant to you if you don't have a job and can't get one.
So the labor policies are doing NOTHING for those people. Consider changing the laws so it actually helps them get and keep a job... and we'll actually be moving in a more positive direction.
A new smart phone should be able to emulate a 20 year old desktop computer pretty easily.
We're not talking about top of the line performance here.
If you're emulating DOS for an extreme example, you mostly have to provide the sort of performance expected of an old machine that was built around the time DOS was released. That's good enough.
Note, those machines ran those programs pretty quickly. But that was because the programs were pretty simple and coded in such a way that they didn't waste a lot of CPU cycles screwing around.
... My mind remains open, I'd just like to see some independent confirmation that this thing actually works. We see a lot of bogus inventions on the internet. You fake something up in photoshop or some 3d modelling program and then write up some nonsense tech spec sheet for it.
I really want this thing to be real. But... I want it confirmed.
That backward compatibility is actually one of their biggest draws.
If they issued an OS that had none their whole hold on the market would evaporate.
To that end, they really do need to get better at emulation. That way they can have the best of both worlds. Change the system to be whatever makes the most sense AND have all the old software work seamlessly.
bad OS releases in no way prove that the company's average employee is incompetent.
To the contrary, that could all be the result of some bad management decisions and a bad management culture. MS is known to have such a management culture with infighting, internal politics, and intentional undermining of each other by other projects.
As such, you don't really need to look any farther.
Slashdot Mirror
Do they? Do they also want to eat babies and kill all the black people?
Or is that merely a bigoted argument sold to and bought only by the gullible?
Try again please.
Both sides of the isle have families. Both have children. Both want good things for the future of the nation.
No sizable portion of the nation wants bad things. So do us all a favor and cut the bigoted arguments unless your real objective here is to identify yourself as a bigot.
You said you don't have patience to have the discussion. That is if anything a forfeit on your part by default.
Or will you now retract that and have a discussion.
Stupid rhetorical games with some cargo cult seeming of wit won't work on me. It neither impresses nor intimidates me. Either engage or forfeit by default.
Go through the list... she's always said yes to expansions in executive power.
*chuckles*
Keep your delusions about the moral integrity of that cliche if you insist. That isn't my primary concern.
Rather, my concern is that for the movement to have ANY credibility it must not be a partisan agent.
I do care about the environment. And by allowing the movement to be co-opted by partisan agents they instantly and unavoidably make themselves enemies of those partisan groups. If they were no so linked then they could make alliances on both sides and work to common goals.
The failure of the environmental movement has largely come about because of this strategic error.
I suspect you're just going to respond to this by asking for citations for every statement while of course carefully making none yourself. That is not a discussion in good faith.
Either participate or drop all pretenses of participation.
The core of the political movement around climate change, and therefore its organization was Al Gore.
Pretending otherwise is a game for children and idiots. I am neither. Step it up.
If you don't have patience for the environment then you don't care.
Much of my argument was about bursting the pretense of moral superiority that some cling to... you clearly don't merit it.
Unless you're willing to sacrifice a little for the cause and try.
So which will it be?
Which is why China has amongst the cleanest air and lowest pollution in the world.
Right?
Or is the statement idiotic.
The question is rhetorical.
If anything is a consistent argument against democracy it is ignorant and asinine opinions of average people in democracies.
Sadly, totalitarian leaders are no less immune to idiocy.
I really don't have the solution to the problem. But something that filtered the voting rolls to some extent might be needed if we're increasingly turning into an idiocracy.
Only invalidated if the information is false.
Since it isn't, you're saying that you have a right to ignore verified facts if one of the sources is not to your liking.
That is at best bigoted and at worst idiotic.
If anyone has invalidated his opinion it is more likely to be the stupid bigot.
Don't you think, twit?
Apparently the UN Climate Chief just said that only Communism can stop global warming.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/15/un-climate-chief-communism-is-best-to-fight-global-warming/
So... you can see how that would effectively cause most of the opposition to feel vindicated that the whole thing is just a ploy to promote radical leftist redistributionalism.
Look, if you ACTUALLY care about the environment, then there is no way to get cooperation unless there is no perception of political bias. If you can't do that, then really you can't do anything. As pointed out in the article, communism actually has a terrible environmental record. So not even that would work.
Making Al Gore your front man was a strategic error. Saying the debate was over just meant a lot of minds closed instantly in response and decided then and there that you were wrong.
If you care... you'll reengage with humility, mutual respect, and patience. The only reason to not do that is because you refuse to control your ego, refuse to treat people you need the cooperation of with respect, and lack the intellectual patience to go through a matter in the time required.
And if that is the case... you don't really care.
I care. I have my own biases but I am willing to humbly go through the matter acknowledging what I don't know or understand, showing common courtesy to people that I might not agree with or trust, and patiently going through the matter step by step.
Anyone that cares must be willing to do that. Anyone that is not willing to can't possibly care because they've put their own petty personal prejudices above the vitality of the global ecosystem.
1. When factories in their territory suffer consistent brownouts and must supply their own power it is relevant. We don't compete as well here because while our systems don't brown out we also don't provide the power at a competitive rate. Increase capacity here and we win this issue.
2. its not just IP, its also thieves, property dispute, vandalism, etc. It goes as far as murder.
We had an issue not long ago where a US company in Russia was told to pay a special price for electricity for a retail store. If they didn't the power would be cut off. None of this was legal or official. it was just lawlessness.
You see that sort of thing in China and India as well.
3. No it is not zero.
4. We actually make a lot of things in the US. We still have substantial industrial capacity. We do especially well with high tech industrial machinary and medical gear. Anything very high quality where the customer doesn't mind paying a premium to make sure its done right. Its just eroding due to people being absolutely idiotic as regards labor and commerce policy.
Idiocy will undermine any empire. And the stubbornness and ignorance of many on the issue is killing us.
5. You're asking for facts that are at your fingertips. I don't need to show you how to use google. Asking me to show you where the sand is when you're standing at the beach doesn't strike me as a productive discussion. Either you're honestly interested and can find the information very easily or you're not. Either way... little point in my responding to that with graphs.
6. As to insurance, the issue is more that the employer is paying for it. Insurance itself is unavoidable. Even the people that advocate governments take care of everything are still advocating for insurance... its just government insurance. Your premiums paid in taxes.
You can't get away from it. Insurance is a good thing.
7. As to the non paycheck portion, this is merely your ignorance and I have little patience for debating people that are both ignorant of the fact and arrogant in their convictions.
So, since we likely have little to gain by continuing with each other... I bid you good day, sir.
*tips hat and walks away*
so all those slow downs are so a system service can check for internet explorer updates? A program which shouldn't even be integrated into the OS?
really MS? Knock it off.
isn't it mostly free one way or the other?
The arguments against phone calls on planes seem to be mostly about the irritation factor of phone calls.
That is not a safety concern and therefore is not something the federal government needs to regulate.
NOTE just because the federal government says something is legal on a plane doesn't mean the airline needs to allow it.
Which means, the FCC can allow phones on the planes and then the airlines can decide if they're going to allow it themselves.
I agree phone calls would be annoying on a plane. However, I don't think most could credibly complain about texting or screwing around with a tablet.
Seriously, people need to learn the difference between something being bad enough that an establishment should discourage it and being bad enough that the federal government should make it a federal regulation/law.
Talking on a phone while flying while annoying is not worthy of a federal ban on the practice. Anyone advocating otherwise is either an intellectually lazy idiot that doesn't know what he is talking about or they're fascists. Sounds extreme but that's an extreme abuse of federal power for relatively petty purposes.
1. As to infrastructure, it all depends. Our distribution grid is actually pretty good. The rate of brownouts for example in the US is pretty good.
The issue is generation capacity which needs to be upgraded in the US. Drop a few nuclear reactors in key parts of the US and we'll be sell positioned.
2. Our legal system is actually much better then most other countries because we still largely have rule of law. The issue is that our system has become too complicated, too expensive, and too slow.
3. Labor is never zero.
4. If machines are made in the US it is harder for a foreign competitor to duplicate them because you haven't been paying them to literally make them in the same factory.
Many US companies have been running into this in china. They make something over there and the exact people they hired to make it start selling a knock off. If you don't teach them how to make it and pay them to gear up then its harder for them to start churning out knock offs.
5. There is positive job growth in those states including manufacturing. Were you correct, that would not be the case. It is the case so you're wrong.
6. I would agree. The real issue is hospital costs. But that is a situation that is enabled by insurance. The problem is that the patient has no incentive to control costs.
When you get medical care you're spending someone else's money on yourself.
To control medical costs, patients must spend THEIR money on themselves. The whole medical industry needs to disclose prices before treatment whenever possible, list prices openly so people can shop for treatment, and generally subject the whole system to market forces.
That said, what I am really talking about here in regards to the topic is aspects of employment that cost a company money yet the employee doesn't see in their pay check.
You don't want your pay reduced. That is reasonable. The company doesn't actually care where the savings come from so long as when all the numbers are added up they're paying a competitive price. What we need to do, is lower the non-paycheck portion of what the company pays per employee.
Actually we do seem to have exactly that situation.
The unemployment rate is going up and number of people that have been unemployed for a long enough period of time that the government stops counting them as unemployed has gone up.
You can bury your head in the sand as to the statistics but the US labor force is shrinking at a much faster rate then our population.
You assume the only cost is labor.
It is not the only cost.
If labor were the only cost then you'd be correct.
We can help US competitiveness by doing a few things.
1. Lower non-labor costs of doing business in the US. Little things like helping companies with environmental and zoning regulations. NOT so they can pollute but so they can operate without being harassed by people using the law to forbid their operation. This sort of thing is very common in California where I live. Whenever people don't want something to be built, they find a species that would be negatively impacted by the construction. Using this method you can shut down anything. It is literally impossible to build anything anywhere on earth without potentially infringing on something's habitat.
2. Make sure companies can get reasonable access to utilities. Things like water, power, and sewage. Frequently industrial users face problems with the quantities they need being offered at reasonable prices. This is largely the result of many portions of the country not building sufficient water and power facilities such that they have no excess. Data centers have been having a problem with this lately because they can't get enough power from the grid at a competitive rate. This is unacceptable and raises the cost of doing business in the US if you ultimately have to build your own power station etc simply to keep the lights on. Is this the US or north korea? Fix it.
3. Go through the tax and regulation system and simplify it. I am not saying have them not follow the law or abuse things. Merely make the law easier to understand and less ambiguous. If you look at many companies they spend a not inconsiderable amount on compliance with the law. All of those people hired to do that is overhead. It makes things more expensive and the whole operation less attractive. In the last 10 years the proportion of payroll involved in managing paperwork for federal and state agencies has skyrocketed. Reduce the number of people needed to maintain compliance and the company might be able to operate on a larger scale. Its further not only the money, its the fear, the uncertainty, and the frustration. Corporations are not machines. They're human organizations and they do get annoyed.
4. Eliminate stupid taxes and fees that don't make any sense. The best example of this would be a tax currently levied against oil refiners for not including enough ethanol in their fuel. The problem is that if refineries put that amount in fuel, it will invalidate the warranty of cars that use it. As a result, they can either produce fuel that is fined or produce fuel that is worthless. Obviously they choose the first option. And the result is that everyone pays more for gas because the federal government is putting a big penalty fee on ALL gas refineries for not doing something that they cannot do. There are many examples of this sort of thing and you'll find specific examples in every industry. Ask a corporate accountant in any industry and they'll give you specifics.
The point is... the laws are frequently sloppy messes quickly conceived by people that didn't really care and then forgotten. The legal code is the ultimate spaghetti code. And it needs to be rationalized.
which class are you referring to here?...
And really it doesn't serve anyone in the long run. In the short run it might be expedient for some. But the system is showing signs of systemic melt down which would ruin things for everyone. Everyone. Even the politicians.
Its not just the unions that are an issue. The unions are frankly a nonstarter at this point. Entirely non-competitive in most cases.
Which is why most new jobs especially factory jobs are in right to work states.
The unions have frankly negotiated themselves out of a job.
And they can talk about how safe and secure they are when they're unemployable. Boeing is leaving Washington state amongst other things because of this crap. Do you have any idea how expensive that is for them? How much they have invested there?
Think about how extreme the pressure would have to be to make relocating make sense.
So the unions in most cases are done. A few will survive through government subsidy like the auto unions currently and then there are a few rational unions that have never been unreasonable. Those might well survive. But the rest are already dead.
As to non-union labor laws... health insurance is an issue, various taxes are an issue... it gets specific on an industry by industry basis. But there is a lot of overhead from government at this point and you can see the difference it makes by looking at the states.
Some states have less overhead on business and without exception they all have much stronger job markets.
So connect the dots. Do you want to compromise or lose?
Because there is no winning with the current attitude. Its death... slow and sure.
We don't need to go that far. There are a lot of things going for the US.
We have superior infrastructure, more secure and reliable legal code, we have proximity to the actual corporate governance which makes administration cheaper, and there are various issues with securing intellectual property that are easier in the US then elsewhere.
The corps are actually hiring in parts of the US. Places like Georgia, the Carolinas, and Texas.
Do that along with making the insurance and medical costs of hiring someone less of a big deal and we'll if anything have an advantage.
Corporate America is making a very clear statement. They will not hire Americans under these rules and we can't make them.
We need to really do a gut check on a lot of our labor policies, taxes, and regulations that effect labor prices in the US and... then ask ourselves if we'd rather keep the laws as they are and accept high levels of permanent structural unemployment... or if we're willing to compromise to get people into careers.
The whole issue is very politically charged. A gaggle of people might well respond to this post calling me names for suggesting compromise here. But the thing is labor policies are irrelevant to you if you don't have a job and can't get one.
So the labor policies are doing NOTHING for those people. Consider changing the laws so it actually helps them get and keep a job... and we'll actually be moving in a more positive direction.
A new smart phone should be able to emulate a 20 year old desktop computer pretty easily.
We're not talking about top of the line performance here.
If you're emulating DOS for an extreme example, you mostly have to provide the sort of performance expected of an old machine that was built around the time DOS was released. That's good enough.
Note, those machines ran those programs pretty quickly. But that was because the programs were pretty simple and coded in such a way that they didn't waste a lot of CPU cycles screwing around.
... My mind remains open, I'd just like to see some independent confirmation that this thing actually works. We see a lot of bogus inventions on the internet. You fake something up in photoshop or some 3d modelling program and then write up some nonsense tech spec sheet for it.
I really want this thing to be real. But... I want it confirmed.
In what way did anything you say address my comment?
I swear, half the people that respond are merely venting their spleen at the first thing that relates to some random grievance only they know about.
I didn't kill your puppy or sleep with your sister.
Please make contextually relevant comments rather then just auto responding with something from your id.
That backward compatibility is actually one of their biggest draws.
If they issued an OS that had none their whole hold on the market would evaporate.
To that end, they really do need to get better at emulation. That way they can have the best of both worlds. Change the system to be whatever makes the most sense AND have all the old software work seamlessly.
bad OS releases in no way prove that the company's average employee is incompetent.
To the contrary, that could all be the result of some bad management decisions and a bad management culture. MS is known to have such a management culture with infighting, internal politics, and intentional undermining of each other by other projects.
As such, you don't really need to look any farther.