That's just science, of course. NASA shouldn't even be involved in commercial stuff, which can be handled more efficiently by private enterprise than by a government agency.
If Bush is going to ignore/break treaties he should
start with The Convention On International
Liability For Damage Caused By Space Objects.
This prevents the US from allowing a free hand to
private enterprise in space for US based
companies, because according to the Convention the
US government accepts full responsibility for
damages caused.
It was enacted in 1972 as a punishment for the
US being so far ahead of everyone else in our
space program. (Also goes to show that the current
spate of anti-American sentiment is nothing new).
Gamespy has made downloading maps, mods, sdks, and
the like a serious chore.
I don't hate GSI, but they are on my "don't bother"
list alongside mydrive, angelcities, ispace, and the
like. You could set up a distribution with
reasonable naming conventions, links from review
sites, and so on.
Look at a recent article on Macintosh virus attacks. They used to be none-existent. Now with OSX they are up to half as common as Microsoft.
and 3/4 of all numbers supporting an argument are
made up on the spot.
Microsoft's problem is that they have blurred the
distinction between the OS and applications. They
received a boost to performance and ease of use,
but are paying a cost in massive internal complexity.
However, despite this handicap, I see little difference between games ported between the consoles, and I can't say one is better than the other (yes, I do own all 3).
I own all three as well, and I am very unhappy
with the GC. The ports are sometimes inferior,
the good games have been few, and the whole
Phantasy Star Online thing has really pissed me
off.
I agree - you're probably right, but you haven't given reasons. CMD.EXE != Windows is not a cogent argument by itself.
My argument is that Cringely keeps saying "DOS"
and "Windows", without any understanding or
explanation of what he means by those terms.
Beyond confusion about basic terms he also misses
the distinction between abstraction levels.
I understand that a popular science article is
no place for an intro to CS, but he should make
at least an effort to understand the basics
of the subject he is writing about.
The ending of the book, like the ending of Earth (and of the last uplift books, and everything else David Brin has ever written) is pointless mysto-magical claptrap. Once the book starts to wind down it becomes dreadfully predictable.
I'd say Herbert, Zelazny, and Vinge can get away
with the mystical angle, Brin cannot - but he keeps
trying for some reason.
The sad thing is that there is so little good
SF that I keep reading Brin despite the weak
endings.
Proposing some absurd sort of Beowulf cluster would get +5, Interesting, even if the idea was technically unthinkable, but mixing Windows and Linux would get -500, Stupid. Perhaps thinking "out-of-the-box" is stupid, but it has led us to many great scientific and engineering accomplishments in the past.
The problem with that argument is that the article
is not a "thinking outside the box" "it's so crazy
it just might work!" discussion starter. It is
cheerleading of the worst sort.
Since you have not been able to read the article
I'll repeat a choice passage:
Linux is better, faster, stronger than whatever is living underneath XP now, right? Performance would improve.
Statements of that sort are why so many people
have a problem with the article.
This kind of article diminishes the Linux
community and should not be taken seriously.
but rather the NT Kernel, which could easily be consider like the DOS kernel, but built more sturdy.
DOS was pretty much a driver loader built for
a real mode cpu. NT is a modern OS. That means:
Virtual Memory
Protected mode
Task Scheduling
A filesystem manager
There is another huge difference is the size of
the NT kernel vs. DOS. NT is built "more sturdy"
because it would colapse under its own weight if
it were not.
Windows 3.0 had more features of a modern OS than
DOS did. It used DOS pretty much the way DOS used
the BIOS, bootstrap with it and then shove it into
the background.
Have you read this dope's article? I'm begining to wonder if he even knows what a computer is much less an operating system. There are so many holes/problems with this guys article and way of thinking that I don't even know where to begin. I mean damn!
Yeah, Cringely is either incompetent or trolling
for readers.
A couple of glaring errors are worth pointing out:
Even today, you can still get to a C: prompt under Windows XP, which means a disk operating system is hiding there no matter what Microsoft wants us to believe.
Wrong. cmd.exe != DOS
Windows XP is not an operating system. It is a windowing system that sits atop an operating system much as KDE or Gnome sit atop Linux.
Wrong again. explorer.exe != Windows
Now back to Microsoft putting Windows on top of Linux. Linux is better, faster, stronger than whatever is living underneath XP now, right? Performance would improve. As Mike Class points out, by not having to develop its own OS, Microsoft could also save money. They wouldn't need however many people are presently devoted to maintaining the underlying OS that isn't supposed to be there.
Strike three! There are lots of things to like
like about Linux, but these claims are
ridiculous.
Slashdot Mirror
If Bush is going to ignore/break treaties he should start with The Convention On International Liability For Damage Caused By Space Objects.
This prevents the US from allowing a free hand to private enterprise in space for US based companies, because according to the Convention the US government accepts full responsibility for damages caused.
It was enacted in 1972 as a punishment for the US being so far ahead of everyone else in our space program. (Also goes to show that the current spate of anti-American sentiment is nothing new).
Close your eyes and think of England.
You apparently have yet to run incident II.
"Assholes always advertise."
Days of Atonement, Walter John Williams
No worries, this will hold true for the forseeable future.
I don't hate GSI, but they are on my "don't bother" list alongside mydrive, angelcities, ispace, and the like. You could set up a distribution with reasonable naming conventions, links from review sites, and so on.
and 3/4 of all numbers supporting an argument are made up on the spot.
Microsoft's problem is that they have blurred the distinction between the OS and applications. They received a boost to performance and ease of use, but are paying a cost in massive internal complexity.
Whereas everyone in Asshatlandia is wise and good and would never be mean and bad like us bad and mean Americans.
And to go back on-topic: I propose a class action lawsuit against the Internet to get that done.
Now if they had changed the name to something like "Athena: super-dimensional fortress of security" then victory in the market would be assured.
You have the driest sense of humor I've ever seen. My hat is off to you.
The problem remains that you need to trust all participants to play by the rules. One person violates that trust and your content becomes valueless.
I own all three as well, and I am very unhappy with the GC. The ports are sometimes inferior, the good games have been few, and the whole Phantasy Star Online thing has really pissed me off.
Give 'em hell Mister Rearden!
I think the fellow was talking about casting the return of calls like printf, they return a value, but most of the time you are not interested in it.
I am so glad I stayed away this time. Winter's Heart convinced me that Jordan needs to stop writing. If he won't, I need to stop paying him to do it.
The first four books were very entertaining mind candy, 5 and 6 were okay, 7 sucked, 8 really sucked, 9 was back up to suck level.
At last my "Die Yuppie Scum" pet-tote will regain its currency. Excellent.
I agree - you're probably right, but you haven't given reasons. CMD.EXE != Windows is not a cogent argument by itself.
My argument is that Cringely keeps saying "DOS" and "Windows", without any understanding or explanation of what he means by those terms. Beyond confusion about basic terms he also misses the distinction between abstraction levels.
I understand that a popular science article is no place for an intro to CS, but he should make at least an effort to understand the basics of the subject he is writing about.
I'd say Herbert, Zelazny, and Vinge can get away with the mystical angle, Brin cannot - but he keeps trying for some reason.
The sad thing is that there is so little good SF that I keep reading Brin despite the weak endings.
The problem with that argument is that the article is not a "thinking outside the box" "it's so crazy it just might work!" discussion starter. It is cheerleading of the worst sort.
Since you have not been able to read the article I'll repeat a choice passage:
Statements of that sort are why so many people have a problem with the article. This kind of article diminishes the Linux community and should not be taken seriously.
Not quite, because DOS itself sometimes used the BIOS services, it just added a "system call" interface over them.
So, if I were to overwrite the memory DOS had loaded itself into with random info after windows 3.0 had loaded, would it have kept running happily?
No. Windows 3.0 used plenty of DOS services. Not least of which were real mode device drivers, but also INT 21h.
Although Windows 3.0 was not an OS ("thing on a thing" was the most common title I remember), it was closer to the CS definition of an OS than DOS.
I'd love to see someone develop games with a heavy story focus, but it seems likely they would need to hire a professional screenwriter to do it.
DOS was pretty much a driver loader built for a real mode cpu. NT is a modern OS. That means:
- Virtual Memory
- Protected mode
- Task Scheduling
- A filesystem manager
There is another huge difference is the size of the NT kernel vs. DOS. NT is built "more sturdy" because it would colapse under its own weight if it were not.Windows 3.0 had more features of a modern OS than DOS did. It used DOS pretty much the way DOS used the BIOS, bootstrap with it and then shove it into the background.
explorer.exe seems to be what Cringely is talking about when he says "Windows". At least that was my best guess.
Yeah, Cringely is either incompetent or trolling for readers. A couple of glaring errors are worth pointing out:
Wrong. cmd.exe != DOS Wrong again. explorer.exe != Windows Strike three! There are lots of things to like like about Linux, but these claims are ridiculous.What about the classic:
A real traditionalist applies random spelling, but I'm sure you get the point.