It could be true in 1996, but today, anyone can boot up the computer with an Ubuntu CD and install it. When finished, it pretty much works great and, unless you break something, it just keeps working.
Microsoft did pretty little innovation, often being second to market and muscling out its competition, through, perhaps, some of the shadiest deals known to man.
The law doesn't need to do any catching up. They should go after the people who copy the games, the people who import the pirated games, not the mod chip makers (who do things like allow you to run homebrew software). If modchips were widespread, you would see a lot more of those nice homebrew titles.
Oh... It's hard go go after the bad guys? They shoot back?! Too bad. Live with it.
I bet nobody would seriously consider introducing new legislation just to make my job easier. Laws are not for that.
It's not hatred. It's the natural suspicion that arises when you know Microsoft for a long time.
Piracy is what allowed them to have their current market share in most of the world without being accused of dumping. The fact it hurts them now is analog to when a drug dealer stops offering freebies to those already addicted - they know people will pay for Microsoft software now what they wouldn't consider paying, say, in the late 80s.
"the same principles could be used to design a Mars lander."
You would need a much larger mass in order to be able to take off too. In the Viking and Phoenix part of the orbital speed was reduced with parachutes, heat shields and, finally, rockets, that were used only in the final seconds of the trip.
A manned landing would require an entirely different craft. While it could rely on parachutes to do part of the landing, it would still need hefty rockets to climb back to orbit. Even if it doesn't carry enough fuel to a trip back to orbit, the tanks and the rockets must be there, being dead weight most of the time.
The idea of sending very small containers (that may be cheaper to send and imply a more redundant approach to supply) is very good. Still, the habitats and the back-to-orbit vehicle would have to land more or less complete, or there would be extensive in site assembly and testing before they could be used.
"Sarcasm aside, Going to mars now is as difficult as it was to go to the moon in the 60's"
I think it's much, much harder. In the 60s we had, basically, to build reliable rockets and spacecrafts for a week-long trip. In order to go to Mars, we need to build spaceships that go farther, faster and last longer. A LEM would not be able to get back to space if it stayed on the Moon for more than a month. We have never landed anything bigger than my desk in anything remotely like Mars. Those are really messy problems.
We could, probably, do it. But let's not say it'e easy. It's damn hard.
We have no experience of long-duration space flight outside Earth's magnetic field. The longest (and only) manned flights outside it have been to the Moon and lasted only a couple days. We are talking about multi-year flight with little protection from cosmic radiation. We need to properly shield the spaceship or they will be cooked before they get there.
Even if we ignored that, we still need to build a spaceship that can carry astronauts to Mars and back, and that is not a trivial task. It has to be big enough to carry crew, supplies and spare parts for the redundant system. We are talking about something the size of the IIS, with a big engine attached to it. Even if we don't use solar panels and go nuclear (in violation of several annoying treaties), the spaceship required would be quite big.
There is also the question of the Mars landing. We have never landed anything there that's bigger than my desk. We are talking about a powered landing of several habitats, supply-storage facilities and fuel manufacturing facilities and the solar or nuclear power required to power them.
After the landing, we will also have to shield astronauts from cosmic radiation, since Mars have no magnetic field to speak of. They will have to be protected on the ground for the duration of the stay.
As for coming back, we will have to conduct a launch of a reusable, probably single-stage-to-orbit (as we want to cut down complexity as much as we can), vehicle. We never did that, but Mars has a more forgiving gravity than the Earth and we may already have the proper technology for that.
After that, the vehicle I just described must dock with the return vehicle (which may of may not be the same vehicle they arrived in) to return to Earth. They may carry additional Mars-made fuel in the lift-off vehicle if the weight budget allows and maybe use its engine to assist the return craft own engines.
As much as I would like to see it done next year, I know there is a lot of homework to be done before we can take someone to Mars and back.
It's hugely complicated.
Let's get back to the Moon first, make sure we have the technology to survive there for long periods and then venture on to Mars. A dozen dead astronauts won't help.
Only when the market gets crowded. When the market is new, you can get by with fat margins.
Even in a mature market, you can offer your goods for significantly more than your competition (and what they cost you), as long as you can present an attractive deal. Apple sells iPods for much more than they cost to build even when they compete with no-name bottom-feeders for what is, more or less, the same product.
I remember downloading (xmodem) stuff from a NASA-operated BBS using a dial-out node in a packet-switched network called RENPAC. Actually, the modem was in Argentina, so it was connected to ARPAC, but I got to it via RENPAC.
The first computer I had connected to a phone was a rented MSX (from the telco, as a Minitel terminal), but it took me about a month to figure out I needed a modem in my Apple II. I kept the MSX for a long time because it was rented with modem for about US$ 5 a month and it had some decent games at the time.
But I wouldn't be surprised if he did say something along that lines before the PC - because we spent so much time with 8-bit 64K machines. You know... He is not a very good futurologist.
He still insists people will conduct searches by voice recognition. I can almost imagine people whispering to the computers at the office "Paris Hilton Sex Video"...
Slashdot Mirror
Oh... As for now, it has everything that's fashionable - a multi-touch interface.
And... That seems to be it.
They won't even bother bringing up the WinFS name again.
What wireless does it use? I had an HP with that @#$%! Broadcom wi-fi and Ubuntu Gutsy worked great on it.
Well... It depends on how old your games are. I am pretty sure my zaxxon.exe can run under dosemu...
That is, if I could read a 360K 5.25" floppy...
It could be true in 1996, but today, anyone can boot up the computer with an Ubuntu CD and install it. When finished, it pretty much works great and, unless you break something, it just keeps working.
Still... It's a bit too brownish...
"Why would I go out and buy a new OS when the one I already have (10.4) is working perfectly well"
Because 10.4 won't run the iPhone SDK?
Seriously: I need it.
But, again, 10.5 is a bitch.
I totally agree. Wireless just doesn't work right anymore.
Now, all we need to do is to use the remaining developers for breeding a new generation of Android developers with very stable legs.
What vision?
Microsoft did pretty little innovation, often being second to market and muscling out its competition, through, perhaps, some of the shadiest deals known to man.
By now, it would have proper virtual memory, memory protection and security.
Had Windows failed in the market, the OS market would, probably be a much nicer place.
And... He made a cameo in ST:TNG.
And I am not even mentioning Dilbert.
Actually modding is legal in Brazil. This specific problem is already solved for me.
BTW, piracy is also rampant, but, at least, police seems to go after the pirates.
The law doesn't need to do any catching up. They should go after the people who copy the games, the people who import the pirated games, not the mod chip makers (who do things like allow you to run homebrew software). If modchips were widespread, you would see a lot more of those nice homebrew titles.
Oh... It's hard go go after the bad guys? They shoot back?! Too bad. Live with it.
I bet nobody would seriously consider introducing new legislation just to make my job easier. Laws are not for that.
You are allowed to modify it in any way you want. You are not allowed to possess an easily concealable weapon in that gauge nor a semi-automatic one.
Law would have to be introduced that prohibits you from having the console mods required to play pirated console games.
It's not hatred. It's the natural suspicion that arises when you know Microsoft for a long time.
Piracy is what allowed them to have their current market share in most of the world without being accused of dumping. The fact it hurts them now is analog to when a drug dealer stops offering freebies to those already addicted - they know people will pay for Microsoft software now what they wouldn't consider paying, say, in the late 80s.
There is nothing wrong with basic features being extensions. That's called modularity.
"the same principles could be used to design a Mars lander."
You would need a much larger mass in order to be able to take off too. In the Viking and Phoenix part of the orbital speed was reduced with parachutes, heat shields and, finally, rockets, that were used only in the final seconds of the trip.
A manned landing would require an entirely different craft. While it could rely on parachutes to do part of the landing, it would still need hefty rockets to climb back to orbit. Even if it doesn't carry enough fuel to a trip back to orbit, the tanks and the rockets must be there, being dead weight most of the time.
The idea of sending very small containers (that may be cheaper to send and imply a more redundant approach to supply) is very good. Still, the habitats and the back-to-orbit vehicle would have to land more or less complete, or there would be extensive in site assembly and testing before they could be used.
Because they were reusing a probe that was canned by the time the rover concept got proven?
"Sarcasm aside, Going to mars now is as difficult as it was to go to the moon in the 60's"
I think it's much, much harder. In the 60s we had, basically, to build reliable rockets and spacecrafts for a week-long trip. In order to go to Mars, we need to build spaceships that go farther, faster and last longer. A LEM would not be able to get back to space if it stayed on the Moon for more than a month. We have never landed anything bigger than my desk in anything remotely like Mars. Those are really messy problems.
We could, probably, do it. But let's not say it'e easy. It's damn hard.
"We have the technology to get there"
Erm... No.
We have no experience of long-duration space flight outside Earth's magnetic field. The longest (and only) manned flights outside it have been to the Moon and lasted only a couple days. We are talking about multi-year flight with little protection from cosmic radiation. We need to properly shield the spaceship or they will be cooked before they get there.
Even if we ignored that, we still need to build a spaceship that can carry astronauts to Mars and back, and that is not a trivial task. It has to be big enough to carry crew, supplies and spare parts for the redundant system. We are talking about something the size of the IIS, with a big engine attached to it. Even if we don't use solar panels and go nuclear (in violation of several annoying treaties), the spaceship required would be quite big.
There is also the question of the Mars landing. We have never landed anything there that's bigger than my desk. We are talking about a powered landing of several habitats, supply-storage facilities and fuel manufacturing facilities and the solar or nuclear power required to power them.
After the landing, we will also have to shield astronauts from cosmic radiation, since Mars have no magnetic field to speak of. They will have to be protected on the ground for the duration of the stay.
As for coming back, we will have to conduct a launch of a reusable, probably single-stage-to-orbit (as we want to cut down complexity as much as we can), vehicle. We never did that, but Mars has a more forgiving gravity than the Earth and we may already have the proper technology for that.
After that, the vehicle I just described must dock with the return vehicle (which may of may not be the same vehicle they arrived in) to return to Earth. They may carry additional Mars-made fuel in the lift-off vehicle if the weight budget allows and maybe use its engine to assist the return craft own engines.
As much as I would like to see it done next year, I know there is a lot of homework to be done before we can take someone to Mars and back.
It's hugely complicated.
Let's get back to the Moon first, make sure we have the technology to survive there for long periods and then venture on to Mars. A dozen dead astronauts won't help.
"God only knows it won't happen in the current climate."
;-)
I must correct you.
Everybody knows a manned Mars landing is ludicrous in the current geo-political climate.
Let's keep omnipotent, all-knowing, invisible super-beings out of this.
Only when the market gets crowded. When the market is new, you can get by with fat margins.
Even in a mature market, you can offer your goods for significantly more than your competition (and what they cost you), as long as you can present an attractive deal. Apple sells iPods for much more than they cost to build even when they compete with no-name bottom-feeders for what is, more or less, the same product.
I remember downloading (xmodem) stuff from a NASA-operated BBS using a dial-out node in a packet-switched network called RENPAC. Actually, the modem was in Argentina, so it was connected to ARPAC, but I got to it via RENPAC.
The first computer I had connected to a phone was a rented MSX (from the telco, as a Minitel terminal), but it took me about a month to figure out I needed a modem in my Apple II. I kept the MSX for a long time because it was rented with modem for about US$ 5 a month and it had some decent games at the time.
Love the vector-ish graphics. Wonder if I can spread screen across a dozen X servers.
Wish I had a Tektronix terminal with a storage tube.
In Brazil we had to use a diode in the phone wire. You had an easier time.
No. He didn't.
But I wouldn't be surprised if he did say something along that lines before the PC - because we spent so much time with 8-bit 64K machines. You know... He is not a very good futurologist.
He still insists people will conduct searches by voice recognition. I can almost imagine people whispering to the computers at the office "Paris Hilton Sex Video"...