With the caveat that the older hardware has drivers for windows 7 (and yes, there's plenty of stuff that didn't, especially in terms of soundcard drivers etc).
Even sound "cards" which supposedly have Windows 7 drivers can come unstick with the try and workout if speakers/headphones are plugged in "feature".
Even hardcore feminists start to disagree with "positive discrimination", i.e. preference of women to men when hiring. Because it defeats the goal of equality and equal treatment.
As long as it remains, the misogynists will have the argument that the woman only got her position because she's the "quote female", the woman that had to be hired to fulfill some kind of bullshit law. She can be successful, she can be not only good at her job, she can be better than any man in the role, yet still she's going to be the "quota woman".
That's assuming that those involved won't deliberatly try to hire the incompetent as "quota fillers".
Also it ends up being counterproductive. If there are enough programs like this then schools will push girls that don't have the same ability or interest through them just to get the money. Then people will notice that "women coming into IT don't do so well" (unofficially of course) and that will end up being the initial assumption even for women who were interested, able, and would have taken that career without any cajoling.
Something which is likely to happen with ANY form of "positive discrimination", "affirmative action" or whatever the current PC term for such activities might be.
If we have cheap electricity via safe nuclear power, then using some of it to generate fuel from sea-water is surely a lot better than putting the effort into getting it out of the ground and then shipping it half-way around the world.
There's also a refining process since what comes out of the ground isn't directly useful as any kind of fuel.
Then again, with cheap nuclear power, we can also effectively supply hydrogen (which is obviously much cleaner) for other internal combustion engines.
Except that hydrogen is a much more difficult fuel to handle in comparison with methane, ethane, propane or butane. With liquid hydrocarbon fuel being even easier to handle than gases.
When you electrolyze water, it divides into hydrogen and oxygen, as any 4th-grader should know.
It's actually easier using sea water. All the disolved salt means that the water is quite a good conductor. With freshwater you tend to need to add either a salt or an acid...
The methane produced in the process has to be distilled out of the product
If the methane is so well disolved that the only way to remove it is by distillation then does its presence really matter if the intended use is in a gas turbine engine?
The problem with this is that it's cryogenic with an extremely low boiling point of 20 K (Kelvin). You would have to carry a much heavier tank and insulation for the liquid hydrogen on the aircraft.
Which would reduce both payload and fuel capacity.
You would also need to handle boil off of hydrogen while the plane is on the ground
Not just whilst on the ground. The ambient temperature at FL400 is still well above the boiling point of hydrogen. So further reducing range is going to be refrigeration. Boiling fuel in a wing tank is likely to be a very bad thing.
For big commercial aircraft, it will be better to use liquid hydrogen directly.
In order to be liquid the hydrogen needs to stay between -259 and -253 C. Hardly going to be easy to arrange in the wings of an aircraft. Never mind that such low temperatures are also likely to render the material far to brittle to function as a wing. Even trying to fill the tanks of an A380 with liquid hydrogen would probably destroy the plane before the engines could be started.
Marriage is not a right, even for straight people. So it's YOU creating a strawman. I understand that marriage-as-a-right is how the social justice campaign has been waged for several generations, and you know even have fairly high ranking judges agreeing, but there is no historical precedence, and certainly nothing in the letter or intent of the constitution that makes marriage a right. Marriage is a privelege granted to theoretically-productive couples (in the sense of procreation) to encourage said activity.
That may not be the primary function of marriage. Even modern marriages include the transfer of property ownership.
Why would it be impossible for five people in a marriage to have the same rights as two? I am awaiting the day when those opposed to polyamorous marriage find themselves on the wrong side of history... I'm sure people have thought in the past that same-sex couplings would, by the laws of nature/physics/whatever, could not be given the same rights.
Maybe it's a fear that allowing poly "marriages" would also change the rules (including those which are "unwritten") for mono "marriages". In the same way that gay marriages may well make sexism associated with marriage (including divorce) more difficult.
In which case it would make more sense to allow marriage between step siblings (or other situations where genetic testing shows that the people are not close relatives.) whilst barring first cousins from marrying
Incest with children/parents is fraught with psychological manipulation and questions of consent.
The same can apply with "arranged marriages" which are often completly legal.
The law prohibits incest between consenting age siblings or parent and child.
Even if they want to do it. Even if they are over the age of consent. The state is sticking its nose into their bedroom to determine what they can and can't do.
This can happen in cases which make little sense. e.g. step "siblings" who were teenagers when their parents married.
Every argument in favor of gay "marriage" can be used in favor of incestuous marriage and polygamous marriage.
A "simpler" solution might well be to eliminate special laws surrounding "straight marriage". Which would also have the useful side effect of removing a way criminals attempt to circumvent immigration rules.
While the idea that the NSA or some other agency had a hand in these bugs is largely a conspiracy theory, the answer to whether they knew about these flaws and exploited them should be pretty obvious. After all, the NSA has probably done the very same code audits for the purpose of finding holes they can exploit.
These are "black hats" with the resources of a rich nation state to draw on. It's largely academic if they "created" or "found" such exploits. Any planted exploit is likely to look like a "bug".
And before somebody says a closed-source implementation wouldn't suffer these problems, quite frankly, if all of these libraries were closed-source, we wouldn't know if there was a vulnurability at all, or for that matter if any found would be fixed. There needs to be more eyes auditing the security code, not fewer.
It's also likely to be easier for a malicious entity to "slip in" exploits to proprietary code,
In my organization, they have found that most of the XP software will work on Windows 8 32 bit. Thet will not help if there is dedicated hardware, but for a lot of cases, it is simply about testing the software on a new OS.
It also depends exactly which software this applies to, Not much help if all of the "trival" is easy to migrate, but the "critical" is difficult/impossible.
Further, Microsoft can support Windows XP, they just want more $$$ to do it (so, if they can do it for one company, and the goods they're selling are infinite, why can't they for all the rest?). If they offered a path to upgrade that didn't cost an arm and a leg, they wouldn't see this kind of lingering on XP that they do.
The current "upgrade" path is one of reinstall from scratch.
If they spent a little more time streamlining their upgrade process and provided proper support for older binaries, maybe. Try to run a Win16 binary on Windows Vista+ and see what happens - hell, even binaries officially supposed to run under Windows 8 won't.
Not just Win16 binaries are affected. Also refusing to run can be less of a problem than running, but doing different things some of the time. Desling with such software can rapidly become expensive.
It costs a lot more than a new PC to upgrade thousands of PCs. Imaging, deployment, backup/restore processes for the end users is just the beginning. Upgrading dozens, hundreds, or thousands of individual customized applications to be compatible with Windows 7 is an absolute nightmare. I know all about this just from upgrading my relatively small workplace from XP to 7. It was a fight just to get core, mission critical apps to work with IE 9; 10 and 11 are out of the question. Lots of cash to vendors and app support folks, lots of cash to deployment specialists, lots of overtime. Adds up to a LOT of money.
XP to 7 (or 8) is really a "migration" than an "upgrade". Depending on a lot of factors it may or may not be the easiest (or cheapest) migration to make.
Much more than that, obviously. You don't replace the operating system, reinstall and develop specialist applications for £5 a PC.
There's dealing with changed behaviours. Especially any which are poorly (if at all) documented. Subtle differences can easily push up the costs of a migration.
Someone else mentioned DRM for old software that you canâ(TM)t virtualize, like those old printer port dongles that were required to run some software.
There are also cases where vendors throw hissy fits over any mention of running their software in a virtual machine, even if there are no specific hardware issues. As well as systems which are "embedded" or otherwise tied to specific pieces of hardware.
I'm afraid its actually *you* who is full of shit in this case, as the Sales of Goods Act 1979 and its amendments are precisely what I am referring to, and as I have intimate knowledge of that act and its various legal successes, I can safely say that you are full of bollocks.
The laws in question only cover "goods and services". Whilst a software licence might have some of the attributes of both it dosn't appear to actually be either, thus falls outside the scope of the legislation. Also most of the protection excludes "business to business".
Sorry, thats a load of bollocks - the NHS has had over half a decade to do something about their situation and they failed,
The NHS isn't a single entity. With various forms of part privatization and outsourcing over, at least, the last 30 years having contributed to this. Such "fragmentation" is likely to make any form of computer system migration more difficult.
Slashdot Mirror
With the caveat that the older hardware has drivers for windows 7 (and yes, there's plenty of stuff that didn't, especially in terms of soundcard drivers etc).
Even sound "cards" which supposedly have Windows 7 drivers can come unstick with the try and workout if speakers/headphones are plugged in "feature".
Yeap, because with Win8, no difficulties to transitioning from XP, right?
Most likely also transitioning to MS Office 2010 or 2013...
Even hardcore feminists start to disagree with "positive discrimination", i.e. preference of women to men when hiring. Because it defeats the goal of equality and equal treatment.
As long as it remains, the misogynists will have the argument that the woman only got her position because she's the "quote female", the woman that had to be hired to fulfill some kind of bullshit law. She can be successful, she can be not only good at her job, she can be better than any man in the role, yet still she's going to be the "quota woman".
That's assuming that those involved won't deliberatly try to hire the incompetent as "quota fillers".
Also it ends up being counterproductive. If there are enough programs like this then schools will push girls that don't have the same ability or interest through them just to get the money. Then people will notice that "women coming into IT don't do so well" (unofficially of course) and that will end up being the initial assumption even for women who were interested, able, and would have taken that career without any cajoling.
Something which is likely to happen with ANY form of "positive discrimination", "affirmative action" or whatever the current PC term for such activities might be.
If we have cheap electricity via safe nuclear power, then using some of it to generate fuel from sea-water is surely a lot better than putting the effort into getting it out of the ground and then shipping it half-way around the world.
There's also a refining process since what comes out of the ground isn't directly useful as any kind of fuel.
Then again, with cheap nuclear power, we can also effectively supply hydrogen (which is obviously much cleaner) for other internal combustion engines.
Except that hydrogen is a much more difficult fuel to handle in comparison with methane, ethane, propane or butane. With liquid hydrocarbon fuel being even easier to handle than gases.
When you electrolyze water, it divides into hydrogen and oxygen, as any 4th-grader should know.
It's actually easier using sea water. All the disolved salt means that the water is quite a good conductor. With freshwater you tend to need to add either a salt or an acid...
The methane produced in the process has to be distilled out of the product
If the methane is so well disolved that the only way to remove it is by distillation then does its presence really matter if the intended use is in a gas turbine engine?
The problem with this is that it's cryogenic with an extremely low boiling point of 20 K (Kelvin). You would have to carry a much heavier tank and insulation for the liquid hydrogen on the aircraft.
Which would reduce both payload and fuel capacity.
You would also need to handle boil off of hydrogen while the plane is on the ground
Not just whilst on the ground. The ambient temperature at FL400 is still well above the boiling point of hydrogen. So further reducing range is going to be refrigeration. Boiling fuel in a wing tank is likely to be a very bad thing.
For big commercial aircraft, it will be better to use liquid hydrogen directly.
In order to be liquid the hydrogen needs to stay between -259 and -253 C. Hardly going to be easy to arrange in the wings of an aircraft. Never mind that such low temperatures are also likely to render the material far to brittle to function as a wing. Even trying to fill the tanks of an A380 with liquid hydrogen would probably destroy the plane before the engines could be started.
The crux of the issue is that social attitudes are in flux on this matter.
Social attitudes are always in flux in relation to many matters.
Marriage is not a right, even for straight people. So it's YOU creating a strawman. I understand that marriage-as-a-right is how the social justice campaign has been waged for several generations, and you know even have fairly high ranking judges agreeing, but there is no historical precedence, and certainly nothing in the letter or intent of the constitution that makes marriage a right. Marriage is a privelege granted to theoretically-productive couples (in the sense of procreation) to encourage said activity.
That may not be the primary function of marriage. Even modern marriages include the transfer of property ownership.
Why would it be impossible for five people in a marriage to have the same rights as two? I am awaiting the day when those opposed to polyamorous marriage find themselves on the wrong side of history... I'm sure people have thought in the past that same-sex couplings would, by the laws of nature/physics/whatever, could not be given the same rights.
Maybe it's a fear that allowing poly "marriages" would also change the rules (including those which are "unwritten") for mono "marriages". In the same way that gay marriages may well make sexism associated with marriage (including divorce) more difficult.
Incest, genetic mutants
In which case it would make more sense to allow marriage between step siblings (or other situations where genetic testing shows that the people are not close relatives.) whilst barring first cousins from marrying
Incest with children/parents is fraught with psychological manipulation and questions of consent.
The same can apply with "arranged marriages" which are often completly legal.
The law prohibits incest between consenting age siblings or parent and child.
Even if they want to do it. Even if they are over the age of consent. The state is sticking its nose into their bedroom to determine what they can and can't do.
This can happen in cases which make little sense. e.g. step "siblings" who were teenagers when their parents married.
Every argument in favor of gay "marriage" can be used in favor of incestuous marriage and polygamous marriage.
A "simpler" solution might well be to eliminate special laws surrounding "straight marriage". Which would also have the useful side effect of removing a way criminals attempt to circumvent immigration rules.
Why would anyone in a corporate environment need live tiles, "charms" and "toasts".
Or that matter an "app store".
While the idea that the NSA or some other agency had a hand in these bugs is largely a conspiracy theory, the answer to whether they knew about these flaws and exploited them should be pretty obvious. After all, the NSA has probably done the very same code audits for the purpose of finding holes they can exploit.
These are "black hats" with the resources of a rich nation state to draw on. It's largely academic if they "created" or "found" such exploits. Any planted exploit is likely to look like a "bug".
And before somebody says a closed-source implementation wouldn't suffer these problems, quite frankly, if all of these libraries were closed-source, we wouldn't know if there was a vulnurability at all, or for that matter if any found would be fixed. There needs to be more eyes auditing the security code, not fewer.
It's also likely to be easier for a malicious entity to "slip in" exploits to proprietary code,
In my organization, they have found that most of the XP software will work on Windows 8 32 bit. Thet will not help if there is dedicated hardware, but for a lot of cases, it is simply about testing the software on a new OS.
It also depends exactly which software this applies to, Not much help if all of the "trival" is easy to migrate, but the "critical" is difficult/impossible.
However with your definition of $100 USD, cost to upgrade OS from XP to Windows 7, as being "an arm and a leg"
:)
It';s only 100 USD if your time is free
Further, Microsoft can support Windows XP, they just want more $$$ to do it (so, if they can do it for one company, and the goods they're selling are infinite, why can't they for all the rest?). If they offered a path to upgrade that didn't cost an arm and a leg, they wouldn't see this kind of lingering on XP that they do.
The current "upgrade" path is one of reinstall from scratch.
If they spent a little more time streamlining their upgrade process and provided proper support for older binaries, maybe. Try to run a Win16 binary on Windows Vista+ and see what happens - hell, even binaries officially supposed to run under Windows 8 won't.
Not just Win16 binaries are affected. Also refusing to run can be less of a problem than running, but doing different things some of the time. Desling with such software can rapidly become expensive.
It costs a lot more than a new PC to upgrade thousands of PCs. Imaging, deployment, backup/restore processes for the end users is just the beginning. Upgrading dozens, hundreds, or thousands of individual customized applications to be compatible with Windows 7 is an absolute nightmare. I know all about this just from upgrading my relatively small workplace from XP to 7. It was a fight just to get core, mission critical apps to work with IE 9; 10 and 11 are out of the question. Lots of cash to vendors and app support folks, lots of cash to deployment specialists, lots of overtime. Adds up to a LOT of money.
XP to 7 (or 8) is really a "migration" than an "upgrade". Depending on a lot of factors it may or may not be the easiest (or cheapest) migration to make.
Much more than that, obviously. You don't replace the operating system, reinstall and develop specialist applications for £5 a PC.
There's dealing with changed behaviours. Especially any which are poorly (if at all) documented.
Subtle differences can easily push up the costs of a migration.
Someone else mentioned DRM for old software that you canâ(TM)t virtualize, like those old printer port dongles that were required to run some software.
There are also cases where vendors throw hissy fits over any mention of running their software in a virtual machine, even if there are no specific hardware issues.
As well as systems which are "embedded" or otherwise tied to specific pieces of hardware.
But the updates will only be created for EN_GB and there'll be no way to translate that into american english.
You mean Microsoft actually have an EN_GB version of WinXP? (And presumably IE)...
I'm afraid its actually *you* who is full of shit in this case, as the Sales of Goods Act 1979 and its amendments are precisely what I am referring to, and as I have intimate knowledge of that act and its various legal successes, I can safely say that you are full of bollocks.
The laws in question only cover "goods and services". Whilst a software licence might have some of the attributes of both it dosn't appear to actually be either, thus falls outside the scope of the legislation. Also most of the protection excludes "business to business".
Sorry, thats a load of bollocks - the NHS has had over half a decade to do something about their situation and they failed,
The NHS isn't a single entity. With various forms of part privatization and outsourcing over, at least, the last 30 years having contributed to this. Such "fragmentation" is likely to make any form of computer system migration more difficult.