In March 2001, the keyless entry failures began at the same time the aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson returned to Bremerton. Then in April of that year, the outages began one day after the carrier USS Abraham Lincoln arrived at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard.
Well, it's obvious! Someone brought their spare aircraft carrier for a little shore leave in Vegas.
There are only three exceptions to the draconian new typographical rules: telegrams, treaty materials prepared by the State Department's legal affairs office and documents drawn up for the president's signature, it said.
This is basically the same as phone companies stopping incoming calls on payphones in some areas, as they were being used by drug dealers to run business
And nothing to do with the fact that it was cutting into the phone companies profits.
The article doesn't really make it clear, is this off the shelf software or custom software?
If Microsoft sold their usual software that they sell everywhere else, then they can't be held responsible. Software is a tool, and you can not start banning or limiting basic tools.
On the other hand, if they wrote custom software for the purpose of abusing people, then I would think they are guilty as charged.
Not really, it just means that the push to.NET will happen faster. Read some of the fine print, the patent does not apply to programs actually integrated into the browser.
So, Eolas wanted to break IE's hold on the Internet, instead, they break all third party apps (Flash, Java, etc..) while allowing Microsoft's latest technology to work flawlessly.
I was in the developers beta. My sources said there was no OS/2 code. I don't see a reason why they would lie about it.
Also, I'm not saying Microsoft didn't look at OS/2 while they were working on NT 3.1, they said that outright.
As for your other points:
The LanMan SMB networking is right out of Lan Manager for DOS, of course re-written for the NT architecture.
HPFS had to be rewritten for the NT driver model, or it wouldn't have worked.
As for the OS/2 subsystem, I would think the same thing applies. It made more sense to rewrite DOS and Windows 3.1 support, so why not OS/2 support?
To try and retrofit something do a different architecture would be pointless when you designed the original and can recode each function to the new system.
To sum it up, there is no DOS in NT, there is no Windows 3.1 in NT and there is no OS/2 in NT.
If you want more proof, google for it. There should be something in USENET circa 1992/3. Tho, we did use Compuserve and the Microsoft BBS for support channels back then, that information is most likely lost.
Windows NT started as a rewrite of Windows for the soon to be released N-Ten processor. (Of course, there never was a N-Ten processor, so Microsoft marketing retooled the name to mean New Technology). The idea for the Windows NT project was to get Microsoft out from behind IBM's shadow and OS/2.
Windows NT was designed from the ground up to be based on the same concepts that made the VAX a good system. (The main reason for using VAX/VMS as their model was due to the fact that David Cutler, one of the VAX/VMS creators was hired by Microsoft right after quitting Digital)
While Windows 3.1, OS/2 and VMS were the basis for the design of Windows NT, the codebase had to be written from scratch. There is NO OS/2 code in Windows NT, if there was, IBM would have a claim on Windows NT. There is also no VMS code in Windows NT (that would have started a lawsuit that Microsoft couldn't possibly win at the time). There is also no Windows (1, 2, 3.x) code in the Windows NT kernel, as NT was created as a 32bit OS from the ground up, 16 bit code was out.
So to sum it up, Windows NT was never entwined with OS/2, it was designed to compete with it from Day 1.
If you're interested in the Windows NT story, which is actually pretty interesting, check out winnetmag.com, they have a good article on it.
I'm also reminded of Microsoft's disputed release of NT 3.51 Workstation vs. Server. The price differential was significant, and the only difference between the two installs was a couple Registry entries.
Well, yes and no, you had a server, but without any of the supporting programs that go with the server. User manager for domains, SFM, etc... all were on the server CD only.
I rarely get a home-made system to work 'just right' there is always one (usually minor) problem somewhere that won't go away, or shows up every 10~15 reboots.
I gave up this year, bought my first (personal) desktop from Dell, after assembling my own since about 1986.
"So you're saying they should have given up using every technology they had on the odd chance that *one* of them was harmful."
Um, no, I never said that. I said that people will love to jump to conclusions without having all the facts.
For example, saying things like 'there's no evidence that this will harm you' and that 'it's a waste of time to persue the evidence' smacks of arrogance.
Ever hear of DDT pills? Scientists thought it was so safe that some actually ate DDT to prove it. I'm guessing they know better now...well, I'm guessing their familes know better now.
Slashdot Mirror
Is that better or worse than "CowboyNeal...in the mysterious future"?
I'm sorry, that just sounds wrong.
The last thing I want in my mysterious future is a slashdot editor showing up.
In March 2001, the keyless entry failures began at the same time the aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson returned to Bremerton. Then in April of that year, the outages began one day after the carrier USS Abraham Lincoln arrived at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard.
Well, it's obvious! Someone brought their spare aircraft carrier for a little shore leave in Vegas.
Miriam-Websters defines the following:
CHEQUE chiefly British variant of CHECK
CHECK noun
a written order directing a bank to pay money as instructed.
Internic.net defines the following:
Domain Name:SLASHDOT.ORG
Registrant Country:US
The correct spelling (by the editors) is 'check'. If, however, the user resides in the UK, then 'cheque' would be acceptable.
I would worry about the computer on the floor, think about where that radiation is going.
Seriously, I think the average amount of polution in my environment is doing far more damage to me overall. Well, that, and Starbucks.
Doing this to an entire program would be a huge resource waste.
Well... I was kinda getting tired of my new P4 running software very fast.
It's like I was thinking just yesterday, 'how can I relive the good old days days of the 8088 but still use a modern OS?'.
The Onion does have real interviews and a pretty good AV section.
The print edition is like a reverse newspaper, with the comic section everywhere and a small non-comic center pull-out.
We shall call it Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday!
The tower like objects were actually computer keyboards.
Seriously, try it in write.exe set to wingdings and increase the font size.
There are only three exceptions to the draconian new typographical rules: telegrams, treaty materials prepared by the State Department's legal affairs office and documents drawn up for the president's signature, it said.
As those will all be done in the MS Comic Font.
This is basically the same as phone companies stopping incoming calls on payphones in some areas, as they were being used by drug dealers to run business
And nothing to do with the fact that it was cutting into the phone companies profits.
Incoming calls were free.
The article doesn't really make it clear, is this off the shelf software or custom software?
If Microsoft sold their usual software that they sell everywhere else, then they can't be held responsible. Software is a tool, and you can not start banning or limiting basic tools.
On the other hand, if they wrote custom software for the purpose of abusing people, then I would think they are guilty as charged.
Reminds me of a quote:
"For Behold, the 386! A spectacle of graphics and sound" -S.B.
The XBOX was a good idea.
Until he decides to throw a mod chip in it and open up Mike's house of XBOX hacking.
It all goes downhill from there...
Or you could just download the BREW SDK from Qualcomm.
Qualcomm and Verizon do not want to make it difficult to develop BREW apps, as they are a potential source of revenue.
You're right the tinfoil hat comment was rude.
So, lets get right back to suggesting that the NT developers are a bunch of liars.
Not really, it just means that the push to .NET will happen faster. Read some of the fine print, the patent does not apply to programs actually integrated into the browser.
So, Eolas wanted to break IE's hold on the Internet, instead, they break all third party apps (Flash, Java, etc..) while allowing Microsoft's latest technology to work flawlessly.
Unless you were on the development team, I don't think you are in a position to state this.
And unless you were on the dev team, I don't think you're in a posistion to state otherwise.
I'll take what they said as fact, I have no reason to believe they tried to mislead me, or any of the other developers and beta testers.
There is no OS/2 code in Windows NT.
End of story, anything else is approaching tinfoil hat land.
I was in the developers beta. My sources said there was no OS/2 code. I don't see a reason why they would lie about it.
Also, I'm not saying Microsoft didn't look at OS/2 while they were working on NT 3.1, they said that outright.
As for your other points:
The LanMan SMB networking is right out of Lan Manager for DOS, of course re-written for the NT architecture.
HPFS had to be rewritten for the NT driver model, or it wouldn't have worked.
As for the OS/2 subsystem, I would think the same thing applies. It made more sense to rewrite DOS and Windows 3.1 support, so why not OS/2 support?
To try and retrofit something do a different architecture would be pointless when you designed the original and can recode each function to the new system.
To sum it up, there is no DOS in NT, there is no Windows 3.1 in NT and there is no OS/2 in NT.
If you want more proof, google for it. There should be something in USENET circa 1992/3. Tho, we did use Compuserve and the Microsoft BBS for support channels back then, that information is most likely lost.
I think you are right. I guess I lost track of the N-Ten history.
Windows NT started as a rewrite of Windows for the soon to be released N-Ten processor. (Of course, there never was a N-Ten processor, so Microsoft marketing retooled the name to mean New Technology). The idea for the Windows NT project was to get Microsoft out from behind IBM's shadow and OS/2.
Windows NT was designed from the ground up to be based on the same concepts that made the VAX a good system. (The main reason for using VAX/VMS as their model was due to the fact that David Cutler, one of the VAX/VMS creators was hired by Microsoft right after quitting Digital)
While Windows 3.1, OS/2 and VMS were the basis for the design of Windows NT, the codebase had to be written from scratch. There is NO OS/2 code in Windows NT, if there was, IBM would have a claim on Windows NT. There is also no VMS code in Windows NT (that would have started a lawsuit that Microsoft couldn't possibly win at the time). There is also no Windows (1, 2, 3.x) code in the Windows NT kernel, as NT was created as a 32bit OS from the ground up, 16 bit code was out.
So to sum it up, Windows NT was never entwined with OS/2, it was designed to compete with it from Day 1.
If you're interested in the Windows NT story, which is actually pretty interesting, check out winnetmag.com, they have a good article on it.
Just a FYI:
There is no OS/2 code in Windows NT. Microsoft made that very clear to those in the Windows NT 3.1 beta.
Windows NT 3.1 was a true first generation product.
I'm also reminded of Microsoft's disputed release of NT 3.51 Workstation vs. Server. The price differential was significant, and the only difference between the two installs was a couple Registry entries.
Well, yes and no, you had a server, but without any of the supporting programs that go with the server. User manager for domains, SFM, etc... all were on the server CD only.
EXCELLENT!
Getting laid off? Shut down all the copiers in the office with that $20 bill in your pocket.
Have a lifelong dream of a Kinkos DoS attack? Good news!
That way lies maddness... or at least crashes.
I rarely get a home-made system to work 'just right' there is always one (usually minor) problem somewhere that won't go away, or shows up every 10~15 reboots.
I gave up this year, bought my first (personal) desktop from Dell, after assembling my own since about 1986.
"So you're saying they should have given up using every technology they had on the odd chance that *one* of them was harmful."
Um, no, I never said that. I said that people will love to jump to conclusions without having all the facts.
For example, saying things like 'there's no evidence that this will harm you' and that 'it's a waste of time to persue the evidence' smacks of arrogance.
Ever hear of DDT pills? Scientists thought it was so safe that some actually ate DDT to prove it. I'm guessing they know better now...well, I'm guessing their familes know better now.