Although I'm not particularly a Mac fan, obligatory xkcd.
In other words, for some significant subset of the people still using XP who aren't doing it merely because of compatibility with old software, perhaps a browser and a few other basic resources would be enough.
> Except that OSes dont have near that long of a lifespan.
Thank you! Except, for what OSes do, there's an early steep end of the development curve, where you can't help but upgrade often, and there's a later, flat end of said curve, where upgrading is not as important, (just as there was for cars) and for Windows on a PC people are slowly recognizing that we are now on the flat end of the curve. There just isn't much reason for significant changes in the OS, for the kinds of things that most people do.
The reason to upgrade is monetary, not technical. It's what a large part of Microsoft's profits are based on.
...but that's an artificial reason. I didn't ask what date Microsoft wants to force you to pony up for an unnecessary OS upgrade. I asked, what, aside from age, exactly is wrong with XP?
Please continue making parts for my Model T. Newer Ford's are OK too, but please stop churning out new models for planned obsolescence and give us what we really want. A car that isn't burdened with things like fuel injectors, stater motors and disc brakes.
Signed,
Many Customers
Dear Ford,
Please continue making parts for my Model T. Newer Ford's are OK too, but please stop churning out new models for planned obsolescence and give us what we really want. A car that isn't burdened with things like fuel injectors, stater motors and disc brakes.
Signed,
Many Customers
Ooooh. A car analogy.
The problem is, in this case we're talking the manufacturer wanting you to trade in not your model T built in 1927 but your F150 built in 2001 for one built in 2012. When your 2001 model still does a swell job of transporting bales of hay.
Or because they've lost the source code, or because the only person who knew the software has long since left the company, or they've tried three times since 2003 but each time was over budget and did not deliver usable code, or development has been at a standstill since they offshored the development team. Or because they don't have the budget to push out new hardware in a down economy. Or, yes, ok, because they never will.
> I've got two close friends who believe in a young earth.
I've got a friend who believes that UFOs pick up rednecks on back roads and give them anal probes. Based on that one data point, I choose to believe that all the people participating in SETI are looking for skinny aliens with big heads and a taste for buggery.
The time of the formation of the star does not necessarily correspond to the biblical timeframe for when the universe was created.
For anyone that holds the book of genesis as a literal telling of events, it has to. I forget which day it was, but the bible pretty clearly stipulated that on day X, God created light.
Um, no, the book of Genesis does not say that. Nor does it say anywhere the number of days between that event and any known history. The "6000 year" number is one person's theory. Someone who was perhaps taken a little too seriously by some.
But sure, it's fun to paint an entire belief system based on the theories of a small number of crackpots. Carry on.
That said, one does have to do a risk assessment; someone throwing popcorn in a theater is clearly not threat of bodily harm and doesn't justify a lethal response.
Was the popcorn covered in hot butter? If so, how hot was the butter? Was the retired police officer allergic to corn? Lots of unanswered questions...
Well, since it was a commercial movie theater, the butter was most probably congealed into a cold slimy coating.
If allergies are grounds for lethal self defense, we'd have to equip peanut allergy sufferers with rocket launchers. That might be entertaining, from a distance.
Geeze, one typo and nobody will ever let you forget it.
Yes, that's correct. Maybe Slashdot could build that into the filter: don't show any Anonymous Cowards, and don't show anyone who has ever made a typo in a comment. Ever.
I suspect slashdot would become a very lonely place.
Has it ever been anything but political? I'd argue, yes, at one time.
The point was not to send a message to the world that nuclear war is bad. The clock doesn't convey that at all. That nuclear war is a potential extinction event is assumed. What the clock was supposed to say was how close we were to nuclear war.
It depends how you define "killer robot" if you are thinking cylons then no but if you are thinking about something like UAVs loaded with weapons and ready for war with operators sitting comfortably miles away from any danger then yes killer robot.
I'm not saying killer robots don't exist and aren't a concern. Even worse than your scenario, killer drones are on their way to being autonomous -- no operators at all. So yeah, that's a big concern. But until they become Von Neumann machines, they're not in and of themselves a probable direct cause of an extinction event.
But I'm trying to be fair. Someone please explain to me how killer robots represent a potential extinction event. And not by causing a war. Wars have been caused by more trivial things. "Their king insulted our king" or a single assassination.
In other words, does the doomsday clock actually represent significant threats to extinction events anymore, or just things that a group of scientists don't like? If the latter, it can safely be ignored.
This is the problem when a concept is misused for political purposes -- look at the replies -- the doomsday clock is already considered a joke. And this is not a good thing.
If you had watched the documentary correctly, the killer robots are only temporarily delayed by the particle accelerator. Since they are currently upgrading the LHC, the robots are free to kill us all.
Once the LHC is at full power, we'll be protected again.
I.... completely missed..... that documentary. I'll have to see if Netflix has it...
Slashdot Mirror
Although I'm not particularly a Mac fan, obligatory xkcd.
In other words, for some significant subset of the people still using XP who aren't doing it merely because of compatibility with old software, perhaps a browser and a few other basic resources would be enough.
> Except that OSes dont have near that long of a lifespan.
Thank you! Except, for what OSes do, there's an early steep end of the development curve, where you can't help but upgrade often, and there's a later, flat end of said curve, where upgrading is not as important, (just as there was for cars) and for Windows on a PC people are slowly recognizing that we are now on the flat end of the curve. There just isn't much reason for significant changes in the OS, for the kinds of things that most people do.
The reason to upgrade is monetary, not technical. It's what a large part of Microsoft's profits are based on.
Previous responder had said they could "ask the same question about RHEL 5". You're actually reinforcing my point.
We still have servers running RHEL 5. An add-on for a software package would only run on 5.X.
Dear Ford,
Please continue making parts for my Model T. Newer Ford's are OK too, but please stop churning out new models for planned obsolescence and give us what we really want. A car that isn't burdened with things like fuel injectors, stater motors and disc brakes.
Signed,
Many Customers
Dear Ford,
Please continue making parts for my Model T. Newer Ford's are OK too, but please stop churning out new models for planned obsolescence and give us what we really want. A car that isn't burdened with things like fuel injectors, stater motors and disc brakes.
Signed,
Many Customers
Ooooh. A car analogy.
The problem is, in this case we're talking the manufacturer wanting you to trade in not your model T built in 1927 but your F150 built in 2001 for one built in 2012. When your 2001 model still does a swell job of transporting bales of hay.
> Problem is, if they do so this year a good number are going to OS X, Ubuntu, Chromebooks, etc rather than deal with Win8.
FIFY
So, wait. What, aside from age, exactly is wrong with XP? It loads programs just fine, even today.
Another 15 months is another 15 months.
Or because they've lost the source code, or because the only person who knew the software has long since left the company, or they've tried three times since 2003 but each time was over budget and did not deliver usable code, or development has been at a standstill since they offshored the development team. Or because they don't have the budget to push out new hardware in a down economy. Or, yes, ok, because they never will.
Any document can be interpreted incorrectly, just as any tool can be used to poke your eye out.
There is only ONE "Sun". If you are referring to another star, either use its given name, or say "star".
Um, "sun" is a type of object. Our sun has a name, too.
There should be an "exciting" mod point.
> I've got two close friends who believe in a young earth.
I've got a friend who believes that UFOs pick up rednecks on back roads and give them anal probes. Based on that one data point, I choose to believe that all the people participating in SETI are looking for skinny aliens with big heads and a taste for buggery.
The time of the formation of the star does not necessarily correspond to the biblical timeframe for when the universe was created.
For anyone that holds the book of genesis as a literal telling of events, it has to. I forget which day it was, but the bible pretty clearly stipulated that on day X, God created light.
Um, no, the book of Genesis does not say that. Nor does it say anywhere the number of days between that event and any known history. The "6000 year" number is one person's theory. Someone who was perhaps taken a little too seriously by some.
But sure, it's fun to paint an entire belief system based on the theories of a small number of crackpots. Carry on.
That said, one does have to do a risk assessment; someone throwing popcorn in a theater is clearly not threat of bodily harm and doesn't justify a lethal response.
Was the popcorn covered in hot butter? If so, how hot was the butter? Was the retired police officer allergic to corn? Lots of unanswered questions...
Well, since it was a commercial movie theater, the butter was most probably congealed into a cold slimy coating.
If allergies are grounds for lethal self defense, we'd have to equip peanut allergy sufferers with rocket launchers. That might be entertaining, from a distance.
Geeze, one typo and nobody will ever let you forget it.
Yes, that's correct. Maybe Slashdot could build that into the filter: don't show any Anonymous Cowards, and don't show anyone who has ever made a typo in a comment. Ever.
I suspect slashdot would become a very lonely place.
See blackraven's response, below.
Has it ever been anything but political? I'd argue, yes, at one time.
The point was not to send a message to the world that nuclear war is bad. The clock doesn't convey that at all. That nuclear war is a potential extinction event is assumed. What the clock was supposed to say was how close we were to nuclear war.
You discount that, but basing the doomsday clock on the Terminator movies isn't silly?
An exoplanet orbiting a Sol-like star in a star cluster. I think I've read that story.
It depends how you define "killer robot" if you are thinking cylons then no but if you are thinking about something like UAVs loaded with weapons and ready for war with operators sitting comfortably miles away from any danger then yes killer robot.
I'm not saying killer robots don't exist and aren't a concern. Even worse than your scenario, killer drones are on their way to being autonomous -- no operators at all. So yeah, that's a big concern. But until they become Von Neumann machines, they're not in and of themselves a probable direct cause of an extinction event.
But I'm trying to be fair. Someone please explain to me how killer robots represent a potential extinction event. And not by causing a war. Wars have been caused by more trivial things. "Their king insulted our king" or a single assassination.
In other words, does the doomsday clock actually represent significant threats to extinction events anymore, or just things that a group of scientists don't like? If the latter, it can safely be ignored.
In the long run, a single small arms round has the potential to bring on an extinction event.
I'm not saying that small things can't have large consequences. I'm saying that's not a good use for something called The Doomsday Clock.
This is the problem when a concept is misused for political purposes -- look at the replies -- the doomsday clock is already considered a joke. And this is not a good thing.
If you had watched the documentary correctly, the killer robots are only temporarily delayed by the particle accelerator.
Since they are currently upgrading the LHC, the robots are free to kill us all.
Once the LHC is at full power, we'll be protected again.
I.... completely missed..... that documentary. I'll have to see if Netflix has it...