When you say "Amiga with current technology", what exactly are you referring to?
Both CPU lines the Amiga used are dead. The true power of the Amiga was how the custom chips worked together; those chips hit an evolutionary dead end about the time Windows 95 was released The OS, whilst remarkable at the time, is sadly lacking in comparison to today's OS's in terms of services offered (think TCP/IP, for a start) Amiga, Inc have tried many iterations of a business plan to get going again (think partnership with Tao Group etc) What applications are there that would drive sales of this device?
Don't get me wrong: I almost always update Amiga Forever to keep an Amiga running for nostalgic reasons. But if a new piece of hardware was available, what would it actually contain, and (more importantly) why buy it?
... as that would show the absolutely low quality of their code
What is directly known about Microsoft code doesn't support your argument. For example, after the Windows 2000 code leak several people did their own analysis of the code. For example, kuro5hin concluded:
In short, there is nothing really surprising in this leak. Microsoft does not steal open-source code. Their older code is flaky, their modern code excellent. Their programmers are skilled and enthusiastic. Problems are generally due to a trade-off of current quality against vast hardware, software and backward compatibility.
Note that last sentence: Problems are generally due to a trade-off of current quality against vast hardware, software and backward compatibility.
More recently, static code analysis was done on the legally released Word for Windows 1.1a by PVS-Studio. They concluded:
I have found very few strange fragments. There are two reasons for that. Firstly, I found the code to be skillfully and clearly written. Secondly, the analysis had to be incomplete, while teaching the analyzer the specifics of the old C language wouldn't be of any use.
In short, there may be many reasons not to pay for Microsoft's software. Your perception of the quality of their code is not one.
If I allow Windows Update to "update" the driver for my Bluetooth stick, it doesn't work any longer.
I've seen that problem before on a Bluetooth stick. The real issue was that I had purchased some Chinese ripoff clone of another product (I didn't know at the time that's what I was doing. We learn.); and the original company had released updated drivers to Microsoft. These new drivers worked just fine with the oem product, but something in the ripoff product didn't work with the new drivers, and the stick stopped working. I had to back the drivers out, re-install the original drivers and mark that particular update as "do not install".
I've no idea if the original company (who had their gear ripped off) spiked the driver deliberately or simple broke it by accident.
Insurance companies... contribute nothing while taking exorbitant amounts of our money.
Whilst I've no great love of insurance companies, I do disagree with "contribute nothing". They contribute to your life by wearing the risk that you are unable or unwilling to wear yourself.
Example: I have a 2001 Infiniti QX4 which I paid $4500 for. At this point in my financial life, I simply cannot afford to risk the loss of that car; therefore I am paying Geico an agreed monthly sum for them to lay awake at night and worry, whereas I can get a good night's sleep. They have contributed to my life in the loss of stress.
Another example: public liability. If you own a house, are you willing to risk some nutjob walking down your driveway, "tripping" over a crack and suing you for every cent you have or will ever have? Me, I'd prefer to hand that risk off to some insurance company; preferably one who retains a cadre of lawyers thatnreally, really don't like the concept of giving that nutjob anything (except the legal bill). How about the total loss of everything you own in a fire? Do you want to have that risk yourself, or would you prefer to pay someone else to have that risk for you?
Yes, insurance companies can be a pain in the neck. Yes, you deal with an insurance company knowing full well you better bring your own KY. But I'd much rather deal with their crap than face financial ruin.
It is our intent that most of these devices will qualify, but some hardware/software requirements apply and feature availability may vary by device. Devices must be connected to the internet and have Windows Update enabled. ISP fees may apply. Windows 7 SP1 and Windows 8.1 Update required. Some editions are excluded: Windows 7 Enterprise, Windows 8/8.1 Enterprise, and Windows RT/RT 8.1. Active Software Assurance customers in volume licensing have the benefit to upgrade to Windows 10 enterprise offerings outside of this offer. We will be sharing more information and additional offer and support terms in coming months.
Then your understanding is wrong. As per Gabe Aul, you own it.
The "one year" thing is to push people into upgrading sooner rather than later. If you upgrade within the first year, Windows 10 is free for the life of the device (and that includes reinstalls; so long as you have a Microsoft account and your Windows user is connected to that account, you can reinstall on that device to your heart's content.
If you delay in upgrading past that one year mark, you need to go buy a copy.
The reason you don't do that is because a divide by zero indicates that you've got a logic failure somewhere else in your code.
Or a data input failure.
If I'm streaming data in from a sensor, I expect there to be the odd data failure. Or lost packet. Or alpha particle hitting a memory core. Or something.
My logic might be perfect; if the data is screwy and I pass it in to process it, well that was a silly move.
I'd prefer 100 lines of validation code to throw out bad data before it hits the processing code than 10,000 lines of code to validate within the data processing.
- Fire everyone responsible for Windows 8's design
Which bits of Windows 8? The UI or the kernel?
The kernel is probably the best ever out of Microsoft; the UI not so much. And the person most responsible for the UI (Steven Sinofsky) is already gone.
Was it because they were in the business of generating clickbait headlines?
If that was the case, the headline would be more like : "You won't believe the one simple trick these guys didn't know before starting a business" "UNBELIEVABLE! This one website might SAVE your business!" "4 in 5 business owners are doing just ONE thing wrong. Find out this SHOCKING secret!" "Learn how THESE business didn't follow this ONE simple trick"
The passengers in a plane do not need windows but clearly because planes have windows at considerable cost to design properly (remember the Dehavilland Comet?) there's clearly a want for them to be there.
If I remember correctly, the Comet windows were designed properly (though they turned out to have less safety margin than intended), but they weren't installed properly. And I believe the window that failed was the one used for navigation fixes, which would have been hard to live without in the days before GPS.
The DH-106 Comet had square windows. The resulting point at each corner was a stress concentrator, and as the skin expanded and contracted during normal flights metal fatigue started. A year into service, the metal fatigue reached a point where the skin failed catastrophically and the aircraft came apart in mid-flight.
Installation of the windows was a factor, true, but the square windows was the primary point of failure.
Then you're dating the wrong women. My wife isn't that way. She doesn't have a real diamond engagement ring (and she know it - she'd have killed me for spending $ 2+K on a ring.)
Ditto here. Married 13 years now with a $100 cubic zirconia ring.
Date a shallow woman, Get a shallow woman. Date an interesting woman, Get an interesting woman.
You forgot the most important bit: be an interesting man, be able to date an interesting woman.
If your life revolves around video games, by definition you're a shallow person. I might be interested in a brief conversation with a person about the latest games, but if that's the extent of your interests then it's going to be a short conversation. Mix porn into the conversation, and I'm looking for a fast out.
What is the margin of error of their hindcast and is it within that margin? You do not have to be perfect when predicting this sort of thing, it is kinda like horseshoes, you can get close enough to get the points.
The magnitude of the error is unimportant, to a degree. It's the error trend that is the critical issue.
If my model is wrong by (say).5 C for any given simulation run but the skew of the error over time is 0 (ie. errors are randomly distributed) then the trend is accurate enough to make some sort of prediction.
If the skew of the errors is != 0, then there is a problem over time: my errors will not cancel out; rather they will skew the model (and therefore the forecast) in a particular direction.
Those people matter just as much as some rich guy climbing Everest who the earthquake killed via avalanche.
Every single life matters as much as the next person's.
With a disaster like this, it's very easy to dissociate from those affected because there's no personal connection. By mentioning Dan Fredinburg, no matter what you think of him, he is a name that you at least know and draw some connection to.
2,500 dead, and I've heard of at least one of them. That connects me more to that event, and makes me reach for the card to donate to Red Cross much more than, say, all the killings in Yemen. An Australian was killed, and again that connects me more to that event than what Boko Harem has been up to in Nigeria.
Anyone who manages big data can tell you how corrupt most data sets really are. Names spelled different ways, bits of information incorrectly transcribed, copy errors, format errors, import errors are all low probability events but, when you're dealing with billions of records, there are a lot of them.
As someone who has spent the better part of two weeks fruitlessly trying to get my Experian data to remotely resemble my Equifax data (and I have exactly 18 months of credit history), I can attest to that. Heck, even in a completely contained ERP system that controls a manufacturing warehouse (one of my clients), the issues that people can cause there are surprising.
In nearly every case they didn't effectively use the information they had
The number one problem of large datasets is not knowing what's in there, therefore not knowing really how to query the data to find out. Strator had a report on that maybe a year ago, discussing the 9/11 "intelligence failure" and the beacon-lit paths the hijackers left behind: essentially, since the FBI wasn't actively looking for people who might be planning a major operation, they never saw the clues.
By way of analogy, if I'm sifting through a ledger table looking for (say) a mis-matched transaction, the odd voucher sequence a few rows up might be completely missed. You can't depend on a specific sequence of vouchers in general; that column looks like a lot of noise. But if I'm tracking down an inventory issue, that odd voucher sequence might just be the key.
The point is, it's easy to blame people for missing the obvious after the fact. But that's 20/20 hindsight; the people who missed it may have been working on something much more pressing.
so how is more information going to make things better?
It can't and wont. More unfiltered data = more noise, and more noise can obscure a real signal or give the impression of a false signal.
If people want to monkey with Wikipedia, have at it. We're told over and over again that Wikipedia is not a suitable reference; however the references on the page can sometime be useful.
The person in the story inserted a little fake factoid into an otherwise proper article. This little factoid ended up very quickly
- cited in a lesson plan by a Taiwanese English professor
- cited in a book about Jews and Jesus
- cited in innumerable blog posts and book reports, as well as a piece by blogger Hanny Hernandez, who speculated that Amelia Bedelia’s tendency toward malapropisms was inspired by Parish’s experiences in Cameroon, as “several messages can be
misinterpreted between a Cameroonian maid who is serving an American family.” One blogger even speculated that Amelia Bedelia wasn’t a maid, but a slave.
- cited in the Amelia Bedelia entry on the website TV Tropes and Idioms, and Peggy Parish’s Find-A-Grave page
- cited by Mr. Amelia Bedelia himself: Herman Parish, Peggy’s nephew and author of the books after his aunt passed away in 1988, who apparently told a reporter from the Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier that his aunt based “the lead character on a French colonial
maid in Cameroon.”
Once again, Wikipedia can be a useful overview of a subject and a launch-pad for further research. But after all these years of Wikipedia hoaxes (and Wikipedia maintains a list of hoaxes; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...), the mantra must be "trust but verify".
Because, in Wikipedia's own words:
Misinformation on Wikipedia misleads readers, causing them to make errors with real consequences, including hurt feelings, public embarrassment, reprints of books, lost points on school assignments, and other costs. With some articles, like medical topics, they could lead to injury or death.
VB6 was discontinued right away when Microsoft combined VBRUNxxx.DLL with their Java implementation that got shitcanned by the anti-trust courts.
I though it was because VB6 was a COM product?
... Later still, they added a functional programming language.
Nice sledge:)
Win32 has not become "irrelevant", since all of the newer technologies still rely on those older ones. (.Net "winforms" simply packages up the old Win32 WNDCLASSEX and window class registration and instantiation into a handy Form object, so instead of 80+ lines of boiler-plate code, you use a simple new Form() and be done with it. I fail to see how this is anything but progress.)
And.Net uses GDI and GDI+ directly, and has done so since day 1.
I completely agree with everything you've written... if you're a.net programmer, you're fine. But if you're a C programmer sitting directly on top of Win32, you're screwed
My point, and I guess I didn't make it clearly, is that although these new technologies are fantastic, there is older code out there that is company-critical to companies who invested heavily in the creation of a solution, based on Microsoft's past history of obsessive backwards compatibility, and now find themselves with no way forwards, other than a costly rewrite.
Slashdot Mirror
How about an Amiga made with current technology?
Amiga fanatic from way back here.
When you say "Amiga with current technology", what exactly are you referring to?
Both CPU lines the Amiga used are dead.
The true power of the Amiga was how the custom chips worked together; those chips hit an evolutionary dead end about the time Windows 95 was released
The OS, whilst remarkable at the time, is sadly lacking in comparison to today's OS's in terms of services offered (think TCP/IP, for a start)
Amiga, Inc have tried many iterations of a business plan to get going again (think partnership with Tao Group etc)
What applications are there that would drive sales of this device?
Don't get me wrong: I almost always update Amiga Forever to keep an Amiga running for nostalgic reasons. But if a new piece of hardware was available, what would it actually contain, and (more importantly) why buy it?
Kinda sucks, though, that it's come to this.
OMG!!! You're that guy!!!
... as that would show the absolutely low quality of their code
What is directly known about Microsoft code doesn't support your argument. For example, after the Windows 2000 code leak several people did their own analysis of the code. For example, kuro5hin concluded:
In short, there is nothing really surprising in this leak. Microsoft does not steal open-source code. Their older code is flaky, their modern code excellent. Their programmers are skilled and enthusiastic. Problems are generally due to a trade-off of current quality against vast hardware, software and backward compatibility.
Note that last sentence: Problems are generally due to a trade-off of current quality against vast hardware, software and backward compatibility.
More recently, static code analysis was done on the legally released Word for Windows 1.1a by PVS-Studio. They concluded:
I have found very few strange fragments. There are two reasons for that. Firstly, I found the code to be skillfully and clearly written. Secondly, the analysis had to be incomplete, while teaching the analyzer the specifics of the old C language wouldn't be of any use.
In short, there may be many reasons not to pay for Microsoft's software. Your perception of the quality of their code is not one.
If I allow Windows Update to "update" the driver for my Bluetooth stick, it doesn't work any longer.
I've seen that problem before on a Bluetooth stick. The real issue was that I had purchased some Chinese ripoff clone of another product (I didn't know at the time that's what I was doing. We learn.); and the original company had released updated drivers to Microsoft. These new drivers worked just fine with the oem product, but something in the ripoff product didn't work with the new drivers, and the stick stopped working. I had to back the drivers out, re-install the original drivers and mark that particular update as "do not install".
I've no idea if the original company (who had their gear ripped off) spiked the driver deliberately or simple broke it by accident.
"Shame, shame, shame!"
Long time since I've heard Derryn Hinch's signature tagline :)
Insurance companies ... contribute nothing while taking exorbitant amounts of our money.
Whilst I've no great love of insurance companies, I do disagree with "contribute nothing". They contribute to your life by wearing the risk that you are unable or unwilling to wear yourself.
Example: I have a 2001 Infiniti QX4 which I paid $4500 for. At this point in my financial life, I simply cannot afford to risk the loss of that car; therefore I am paying Geico an agreed monthly sum for them to lay awake at night and worry, whereas I can get a good night's sleep. They have contributed to my life in the loss of stress.
Another example: public liability. If you own a house, are you willing to risk some nutjob walking down your driveway, "tripping" over a crack and suing you for every cent you have or will ever have? Me, I'd prefer to hand that risk off to some insurance company; preferably one who retains a cadre of lawyers thatnreally, really don't like the concept of giving that nutjob anything (except the legal bill). How about the total loss of everything you own in a fire? Do you want to have that risk yourself, or would you prefer to pay someone else to have that risk for you?
Yes, insurance companies can be a pain in the neck. Yes, you deal with an insurance company knowing full well you better bring your own KY. But I'd much rather deal with their crap than face financial ruin.
And how much longer before the EPA rules that cars without OBD-II are illegal?
All in the name of the environment, air quality etc.
Windows 7/8 Enterprise is NOT able to upgrade (for free) to Windows 10.
Look at the fine-print here:
It is our intent that most of these devices will qualify, but some hardware/software requirements apply and feature availability may vary by device. Devices must be connected to the internet and have Windows Update enabled. ISP fees may apply. Windows 7 SP1 and Windows 8.1 Update required. Some editions are excluded: Windows 7 Enterprise, Windows 8/8.1 Enterprise, and Windows RT/RT 8.1. Active Software Assurance customers in volume licensing have the benefit to upgrade to Windows 10 enterprise offerings outside of this offer. We will be sharing more information and additional offer and support terms in coming months.
Then your understanding is wrong. As per Gabe Aul, you own it.
The "one year" thing is to push people into upgrading sooner rather than later. If you upgrade within the first year, Windows 10 is free for the life of the device (and that includes reinstalls; so long as you have a Microsoft account and your Windows user is connected to that account, you can reinstall on that device to your heart's content.
If you delay in upgrading past that one year mark, you need to go buy a copy.
This idea reminds me of "On Error Resume Next".
The reason you don't do that is because a divide by zero indicates that you've got a logic failure somewhere else in your code.
Or a data input failure.
If I'm streaming data in from a sensor, I expect there to be the odd data failure. Or lost packet. Or alpha particle hitting a memory core. Or something.
My logic might be perfect; if the data is screwy and I pass it in to process it, well that was a silly move.
I'd prefer 100 lines of validation code to throw out bad data before it hits the processing code than 10,000 lines of code to validate within the data processing.
But that's just me.
Here, let me run MS for a second.
- Fire everyone responsible for Windows 8's design
Which bits of Windows 8? The UI or the kernel?
The kernel is probably the best ever out of Microsoft; the UI not so much. And the person most responsible for the UI (Steven Sinofsky) is already gone.
So, which group or groups did you want to fire?
I always remember this image of IE7 stuffed with toolbars. A similar test was done on Windows XP.
In the case of IE7, this was done as a test to see if the reset function would work correctly. It did.
Denialists need models, and they need those models to agree with them.
No, they don't. All they need to do is take the model output and compare it to reality.
You'll Totally Believe Why These Startups Failed
Was it because they were in the business of generating clickbait headlines?
If that was the case, the headline would be more like :
"You won't believe the one simple trick these guys didn't know before starting a business"
"UNBELIEVABLE! This one website might SAVE your business!"
"4 in 5 business owners are doing just ONE thing wrong. Find out this SHOCKING secret!"
"Learn how THESE business didn't follow this ONE simple trick"
The passengers in a plane do not need windows but clearly because planes have windows at considerable cost to design properly (remember the Dehavilland Comet?) there's clearly a want for them to be there.
If I remember correctly, the Comet windows were designed properly (though they turned out to have less safety margin than intended), but they weren't installed properly. And I believe the window that failed was the one used for navigation fixes, which would have been hard to live without in the days before GPS.
The DH-106 Comet had square windows. The resulting point at each corner was a stress concentrator, and as the skin expanded and contracted during normal flights metal fatigue started. A year into service, the metal fatigue reached a point where the skin failed catastrophically and the aircraft came apart in mid-flight.
Installation of the windows was a factor, true, but the square windows was the primary point of failure.
Technically, the driver of a car never uses the windows in the door of the back seats.
I really don't want to be on the same road as you when you change lanes on the non-driving side...
Then you're dating the wrong women. My wife isn't that way. She doesn't have a real diamond engagement ring (and she know it - she'd have killed me for spending $ 2+K on a ring.)
Ditto here. Married 13 years now with a $100 cubic zirconia ring.
Date a shallow woman, Get a shallow woman. Date an interesting woman, Get an interesting woman.
You forgot the most important bit: be an interesting man, be able to date an interesting woman.
If your life revolves around video games, by definition you're a shallow person. I might be interested in a brief conversation with a person about the latest games, but if that's the extent of your interests then it's going to be a short conversation. Mix porn into the conversation, and I'm looking for a fast out.
What is the margin of error of their hindcast and is it within that margin? You do not have to be perfect when predicting this sort of thing, it is kinda like horseshoes, you can get close enough to get the points.
The magnitude of the error is unimportant, to a degree. It's the error trend that is the critical issue.
If my model is wrong by (say) .5 C for any given simulation run but the skew of the error over time is 0 (ie. errors are randomly distributed) then the trend is accurate enough to make some sort of prediction.
If the skew of the errors is != 0, then there is a problem over time: my errors will not cancel out; rather they will skew the model (and therefore the forecast) in a particular direction.
Those people matter just as much as some rich guy climbing Everest who the earthquake killed via avalanche.
Every single life matters as much as the next person's.
With a disaster like this, it's very easy to dissociate from those affected because there's no personal connection. By mentioning Dan Fredinburg, no matter what you think of him, he is a name that you at least know and draw some connection to.
2,500 dead, and I've heard of at least one of them. That connects me more to that event, and makes me reach for the card to donate to Red Cross much more than, say, all the killings in Yemen. An Australian was killed, and again that connects me more to that event than what Boko Harem has been up to in Nigeria.
Anyone who manages big data can tell you how corrupt most data sets really are. Names spelled different ways, bits of information incorrectly transcribed, copy errors, format errors, import errors are all low probability events but, when you're dealing with billions of records, there are a lot of them.
As someone who has spent the better part of two weeks fruitlessly trying to get my Experian data to remotely resemble my Equifax data (and I have exactly 18 months of credit history), I can attest to that. Heck, even in a completely contained ERP system that controls a manufacturing warehouse (one of my clients), the issues that people can cause there are surprising.
In nearly every case they didn't effectively use the information they had
The number one problem of large datasets is not knowing what's in there, therefore not knowing really how to query the data to find out. Strator had a report on that maybe a year ago, discussing the 9/11 "intelligence failure" and the beacon-lit paths the hijackers left behind: essentially, since the FBI wasn't actively looking for people who might be planning a major operation, they never saw the clues.
By way of analogy, if I'm sifting through a ledger table looking for (say) a mis-matched transaction, the odd voucher sequence a few rows up might be completely missed. You can't depend on a specific sequence of vouchers in general; that column looks like a lot of noise. But if I'm tracking down an inventory issue, that odd voucher sequence might just be the key.
The point is, it's easy to blame people for missing the obvious after the fact. But that's 20/20 hindsight; the people who missed it may have been working on something much more pressing.
so how is more information going to make things better?
It can't and wont. More unfiltered data = more noise, and more noise can obscure a real signal or give the impression of a false signal.
... is ten dollars on the shop floor and a hundred dollars in the field.
Looks like they tried to save eleven dollars and got caught out!
Well, you grab a Foster's, throw a shrimp on the barbie, and say to your mates "well strewth, that went to the shithouse".
Then you grab your missus and 9 week old, and go camping at Ayres Rock for a holiday.
If people want to monkey with Wikipedia, have at it. We're told over and over again that Wikipedia is not a suitable reference; however the references on the page can sometime be useful.
And then there's http://www.dailydot.com/lol/am...
The person in the story inserted a little fake factoid into an otherwise proper article. This little factoid ended up very quickly
- cited in a lesson plan by a Taiwanese English professor
- cited in a book about Jews and Jesus
- cited in innumerable blog posts and book reports, as well as a piece by blogger Hanny Hernandez, who speculated that Amelia Bedelia’s tendency toward malapropisms was inspired by Parish’s experiences in Cameroon, as “several messages can be
misinterpreted between a Cameroonian maid who is serving an American family.” One blogger even speculated that Amelia Bedelia wasn’t a maid, but a slave.
- cited in the Amelia Bedelia entry on the website TV Tropes and Idioms, and Peggy Parish’s Find-A-Grave page
- cited by Mr. Amelia Bedelia himself: Herman Parish, Peggy’s nephew and author of the books after his aunt passed away in 1988, who apparently told a reporter from the Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier that his aunt based “the lead character on a French colonial
maid in Cameroon.”
Once again, Wikipedia can be a useful overview of a subject and a launch-pad for further research. But after all these years of Wikipedia hoaxes (and Wikipedia maintains a list of hoaxes; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...), the mantra must be "trust but verify".
Because, in Wikipedia's own words:
Misinformation on Wikipedia misleads readers, causing them to make errors with real consequences, including hurt feelings, public embarrassment, reprints of books, lost points on school assignments, and other costs. With some articles, like medical topics, they could lead to injury or death.
VB6 was discontinued right away when Microsoft combined VBRUNxxx.DLL with their Java implementation that got shitcanned by the anti-trust courts.
I though it was because VB6 was a COM product?
... Later still, they added a functional programming language.
Nice sledge :)
Win32 has not become "irrelevant", since all of the newer technologies still rely on those older ones. (.Net "winforms" simply packages up the old Win32 WNDCLASSEX and window class registration and instantiation into a handy Form object, so instead of 80+ lines of boiler-plate code, you use a simple new Form() and be done with it. I fail to see how this is anything but progress.)
And .Net uses GDI and GDI+ directly, and has done so since day 1.
I completely agree with everything you've written... if you're a .net programmer, you're fine. But if you're a C programmer sitting directly on top of Win32, you're screwed
My point, and I guess I didn't make it clearly, is that although these new technologies are fantastic, there is older code out there that is company-critical to companies who invested heavily in the creation of a solution, based on Microsoft's past history of obsessive backwards compatibility, and now find themselves with no way forwards, other than a costly rewrite.