So essentially it took until 2009 for Microsoft to even begin to admit that RPC, a few rather crappy scripting host options and RDP were inadequate, but it took them over six more years to finally implement what is pretty much the gold standard of encrypted TTY interfaces.
No, they have never stated that their previous technology was inadequate. They are just providing yet another option to their existing solutions. That you think that SSH is the one-and-only answer shows your biases rather than demonstrates any admissions of inadequacy by Microsoft.
Maybe this is part of the turning over a new leaf, but I can't help but imagine that the next version of Microsoft's coursework will announce how innovative all of this...
There is no way that they will attempt to claim that they invented SSH. Apart from being so easy to disprove (and thus ridicule), it would also go against the current Microsoft policy of working with standards.
...much as it went around declaring how innovative Powershell was, when all it really is is an overly complicated descendant of Bash, inelegant, overly verbose and unnecessarily convoluted.
Once again you have let your hatred and obvious lack of knowledge get the better of you. The basis of Powershell is that it treats everything as an object and is integrated with.NET so that it has access to virtually the same class structures that low level languages have. How it that being a descendant of bash? As you say, it has a verbose naming scheme for its commands and functions. How is that being a descendant of bash? Sure it has aliases to allow common *nix commands, but it also has them to allow CMD.EXE commands too. They are simply there to provide convenient shortcuts. Apart from those helpful aides, everything about Powershell is all its own.
I just hope all the Redmondites see the irony of MS sitting around for two decades declaring NT's superiority because, you know, Windows and all, and now essentially reinventing, badly in many cases, what the Unix ecosystem has had for decades.
For someone who thought that the only remote access that Windows had was telnet and that Powershell was a copy of something that it is almost completely unlike, I think that you need some more education before you can lecture anyone about the shortcomings of Windows.
You are right that Telnet is not much use and very insecure, but it was not the only option for remote access.
Windows has also had Terminal Services (later Remote Desktop Protocol) since Windows NT 4.0, although it required a special server version. Windows 2000 Server had it in standard configuration, and Windows XP had it by default in workstation versions (except for the Home edition). XP also had the WSHContoller object for running Windows Scripting Host scripts remotely, but that was not much use for adhoc work. Finally, Powershell introduced remote interactive consoles in version 2.0 back in 2009.
Backwards compatibility isn't one of the important goals, and in some cases, incompatibility is the goal.
And yet the link you supplied to support this theory states that the AARD code only affected a particular beta version of the operating system. That situation was more about targeting tests than lack of backwards compatibility.
A lot of code that stopped working (for example in the change to Vista) was because the developers did things that were outside the published API and often specifically discouraged by the official documentation. Despite what a lot of people say, Microsoft does work hard to ensure backwards compatibility. I have been able to run programs written for Windows 3.1 on my Windows 7 system. It would probably work on the 32-bit version of Windows 10 too, but I haven't tested that.
So let me get this straight. Windows is getting the kind of terminal support *nix has had for nearly 50 years?
No, Windows has had the kind of terminal support for years, it is just been their own implementations. The difference now is that they are now using the same particular protocol as the *nix world. In other words, they are going from the kind of terminal support to the exact terminal support.
The phrase "cut their emissions" implies they took some sort of positive action to deal with their environmental problems, when in fact all that happened is that they manufactured less and so spewed less pollution.
You didn't even read the article or even the summary before blathering out that nonsense. From TFA:
"Booming renewable energy generation - China was able to reduce fossil fuel fired power generation by 3% while overall power demand increased 0.5% by adding 30GW of wind power and 17GW of solar capacity, a new world record for any country ever."
In what universe does adding "a new world record for any country" amount of renewable energy sources equates to them not taking any positive action to deal with their environmental problem? Perhaps you should do some research rather than just spouting the party line.
Any time that someone links to a Google search as evidence of anything you know that what they are saying is most likely going to be wrong. I don't know what results were coming up in other regions for that search, but for me I get a first result that says that says that only the industrial goods-producing sector of the Chinese economy is in recession, and that "the domestic-oriented service sector is likely to keep growing at low, double-digit rates -- and that should result in real GDP growth of 4 percent to 5 percent". A growth of GDP means that they are not currently in recession.
The next result speculates on a future recession in China, and that "Fears of a sharp slowdown in China's economy... has rattled global markets in recent months". It later says "while a global recession is not yet reflected in Citi's benchmark forecasts for global or Chinese growth in 2016, it is a view that has gained ground within Citi's global economics team". Once again, speculation and fears of what will happen in the future is not evidence that they are in recession now, and it is not even an immediate prediction that there will be one.
For a more up-to-date quote from the same person at Citigroup, the "in the news" part of the search results had this new article that said "Citi held its growth outlook for China in 2016, but cut it by 0.2 percentage points to 6.0 percent in 2017". That is a forecast of two years of positive growth, a far cry from the technical indicator of a recession of two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth.
China's rate of growth is definitely declining, that is not the same as saying that their growth is actually negative. They may be heading for it at some stage, but not yet. If their economy is moving from a goods producing industry to service providing one then that will have a positive impact on their greenhouse gas emissions. That does not mean that this reduction of emissions is unsustainable, nor that there is any need to "call you later".
I think that you are still looking for excuses to ignore this report so that you can still rely on the old "China pollutes so we shouldn't have to cut our GHG emissions" line.
Had to go back 20 years to find an example so the point stands.
And yet the only actual counter-example that has been given by anybody so far is Lotus 1-2-3 version 2.3, which predates Windows 95 by four years.
I still run a 32-bit Windows 7 system as a games PC so I can run old games. I have been amazed to find games from Windows 95 era work, and been blown away when I found some old Windows 3.1 programs and tried them for a laugh only to find that they too worked.
Of course, these wouldn't work on a 64-bit version of Windows, since they lost the ability to run 16-bit applications. But I don't think that you can say that they are not serious about backwards compatibility simply because they no longer run programs from 2 decades ago.
You can still easily find lots of programs that no longer work, but who is to say that this is just sloppy work from Microsoft instead of the programs themselves doing something that was outside the official documentation, or just stupid things like self-modifying code or programs that assume they have administrator-level access to resources.
For more modern examples of backwards compatibility features in Windows, how about Vista's *File and Registry Virtualization*, which, for example, redirects file writes under Program Files to the users "AppData\Local\VirtualStore\Program Files" folder so old programs that blindly write config and log files alongside their programs will still work. Then there is the ever-growing WinSxS folder full of old versions of DLLs to maintain backwards compatibility. Windows 7 did away with some of the old cruft by making single DLLs that responded to multiple versions.
With all that going on in different versions, it makes me wonder about the truthfulness of the Anonymous Cowards who supposedly worked at Microsoft and who have been claiming that they had never heard backwards compatibility being mentioned there.
It's a shame you had problems, but I haven't had any driver problems from my AMD cards. This includes the 6250-powered APU running Windows 10 that I am using to write this message.
You are wrong. They did not release all the information at one time. What they did say at launch was very vague and incomplete. In fact, they were heavily criticised at the launch for concentrating on the entertainment center features rather than talking about it as a games machine. The gory details that people wanted to know about was simply glossed over or completely ignored, like having to be always online for DRM verses connecting periodically or whether games reselling would be allowed.
The big problem is that they didn't even tell their high level staff all the details, so a lot of the misinformation that was being spread around actually came from Microsoft employees having to wing it during interviews. This meant there were conflicting answers being given by different staff. It also didn't help to have the creative director dismissing concerns outright with #dealwithit. I remember writing at the time about how they could write a textbook on how not to launch a product with all the mistakes Microsoft made.
On the other hand, Sony capitalised on the situation beautifully. They hurriedly rewrote their script for their E3 presentation on the PS4 to specifically address the concerns about the Xbox One and how the their console would not suffer from those problems. Then even made a couple of cheeky videos about them. It did help that they also had the surprisingly better console at a cheaper price. At the same time, Microsoft kept to their script during E3 and failed to address the issues that people had (DRM, privacy, reselling games etc), although at least they concentrated on games rather than spending half the time on TV.
The correct term is that they are drip-feeding information to us. It is a purposeful release of details in small, manageable fashion.
This is the same marketing technique that worked so disastrously for the Xbox One launch, where they held back information to (presumably) try to steer the public discussion away from the more controversial features (eg. the forced online requirements), but which only resulted in us filling in the blanks with rampant speculation.
They could be using this technique this time to keep up the hype for the HoloLens in a non-repetitive way, or they could be attempting to steer us away from the shortcomings of the product (eg. the extremely narrow field of view). Either way, if you don't want to be manipulated, simply ignore this product until it is actually released.
The problem is, NOBODY is doing the complete risk analysis to see if paying Big Pharma is worth the money being poured into Vaccines.
That is totally wrong. People don't start vaccination programs on a whim. The law is very strict on the number and type of medical studies that must be done to allow medicines and vaccines can be sold, and even more to prove their effectiveness , safety, and cost-effectiveness before large scale vaccination programs are implemented.
How many times have you laughed at some scientific study because it seems to be attempting to prove what we already "know"? That is because science does check and recheck everything. They do studies and meta-studies all the time to do risk analyses on drugs to ensure that they do more good than harm. Similarly, the bean counters in government are always looking for ways to reduce medical expenses. There is a constant struggle between what is medically necessary and what is affordable. Accountants don't care if you live or die, as long as you take the cheaper option.
If you seriously think that both medical professionals and accountants would allow a vaccination program that killed double the number of people that they saved then you are misguided and naive. And to spout such erroneous and uneducated claims here is dangerously misleading.
Or it just shows that having the default browser on the dominant OS doesn't mean as much as you think it did. People are used to using the term google as a verb, so it is difficult to dislodge that mindset.
Microsoft isn't going to get humiliated because they didn't meet your expectations. They should be as humiliated as Linux is having such a tiny segment of the desktop market when it is the $free option - and I doubt that this is a position that you would take.
The reason I ask is that according to this website, the genesis of the melody for what we know as "Warm Kitty" (a/k/a "Soft Kitty") SUPPOSEDLY is this relatively ancient (19th Century) Polish children's song. Personally, I don't get it, because, even with my limited ability to read musical notation, it sure doesn't look like the same melody-line, nor is it in the same time-signature.
The melody was adapted from a traditional tune, which means it can be altered to suit new words or a different rhythm. And considering that Edith Newlin thought she was adapting an English folk tune, it is quite reasonable to expect that it had already changed from the "original" version in that manuscript because these sorts of melodies are often handed down as part of an oral tradition and can be affected by the musical version of Chinese whispers.
To my eyes (and ears) the Polish lullaby does appear to be the origin of Warm Kitty. To say that they are too different would be the same as saying that the words "Soft kitty, warm kitty" are different from "Warm kitty, soft kitty".
Finally, I don't mean to be rude but I thought it was so cute that you thought that a 19th century piece would be considered "relatively ancient" (from a musicologist point of view).
So M$ missed the boat on search and social media. They really ought to put their big brains on What's Next in computing, not "re-inventing" one of their dinosaur products.
So the one thing that they didn't miss the boat on (integrated mail/calendaring platform) and you just dismiss it a dinosaur product. And while they might have been late to the search market, they are the second biggest player. It's still respectable to come second the mighty Google.
But the strangest notion that you have is that you think that a company can only work on one product at once. They can easily have one department working on updating Outlook while still researching new markets and finding new ways to ruin Windows.
i'd like my laptop to have cpu in the screen part so it can use the lid as its heatsink.
The only problem with putting the workings into the screen is that it makes it top-heavy, which changes the balance when hold it. It can be slightly more prone to falling over too, although none of these problems are really horrendous. I guess if you kept the drive and battery in the base it would counter-balance the computer.
I have an ASUS Transformer Book T100 (which has a detachable screen that can be used as a tablet). The weight problem is not too bad because the entire computer is so light. I do want to try a Surface Book, which also has a detachable screen (and so has to have the CPU in the screen). But it also has an extra battery and graphics processor in the base to give it more grunt when using it in a traditional notebook format. I'm quite keen to see how the balance is with the mix of parts.
The only reason why a robotic car would be unpredictable is that there are so few if them on the road right now that people aren't used to them. The reasoned, cautious AI driver will be entirely predictable. How many rear-end collisions at lights are because the driver behind assumed that the driver in front would go faster when approaching a yellow light? If people actually did what they were supposed to then the assumption would be that people would not break the law and everyone would drive like an AI car.
The great thing is that the accident rate for human-robot and human-human cars would both go down. Result! Impractical you say? Simply increase the consequences of being caught doing the wrong thing. Take away people's licences more often now. Too harsh? Then don't break the law.
It should be equally safe for 2 cars to be both moving at 70 mph, or both at 30 mph.
That is demonstrably false. It is why we have speed limits in he first place. At the hgher speed the world is coming at you 40mph faster. That includes stationary objects and cars driving perpendicular to you. Your reaction speed and that of the other driver has to be much faster.
If the other car suddenly finds itself heading towards and debris on the road, it is far less likely that it will be able to stop in time. The only course of action might be to swerve or brake sharply. At 70mph you have much less chance of avoiding a collision, and if you get clipped and are sent towards a parked car or tree then the impact force will be much greater and more likely to be fatal.
Please explain how you would build the infrastructure to communicate speed limits to cars. Please include who would pay to build it and maintain it, how cars would get updates, and how the system would work internationally.
Have you even been in a car this decade? The system that you describe is already in place in cars today. We use them to help us navigate, just like the robots do.
I'm typing this on my phone, and it has two applications that can provide comprehensive maps that show exactly where I am and which way I am facing. I can look up maps for cities around the world. I have even used Google Maps to navigate a bike path in the dead of the night. It's like rally driving with the phone telling me which way to turn next. Scary as hell, but fun!
Having speed limits on these maps is trivial. Having context sensitive speed indicators changing with traffic conditions if you use the GPS data from the other cars ahead of you.
Oh there is a reason, it just has nothing to do with safety
Surely this article shows that the speed limit is indeed about safety. If you think that you actually driving at a safe speed and then run into a car that is travelling at the legal limit then obviously you were driving too fast to be able to avoid a hazard on the road. If you travelled slower then you would have more of a chance to see the car, correctly gauge it's speed, and then stop before you ran into it.
You have unstated the difficulty in dismantling a nuclear plant. If was as easy as you claim, why would it cost about $100 million and take 5 years? There is no way that a wind farm would be that hard.
Wind turbines have the ultimate recyclability: reuse. You could easily relocate the entire wind farm to another site with less vocal neighbors.
Tell that to all the rich (liberal) folks who stopped a wind farm in Nantucket...
Sure, why not? Why would it be different for one certain group of people, unless you are trying to make this a political argument to a simple technical statement.
Slashdot Mirror
So essentially it took until 2009 for Microsoft to even begin to admit that RPC, a few rather crappy scripting host options and RDP were inadequate, but it took them over six more years to finally implement what is pretty much the gold standard of encrypted TTY interfaces.
No, they have never stated that their previous technology was inadequate. They are just providing yet another option to their existing solutions. That you think that SSH is the one-and-only answer shows your biases rather than demonstrates any admissions of inadequacy by Microsoft.
Maybe this is part of the turning over a new leaf, but I can't help but imagine that the next version of Microsoft's coursework will announce how innovative all of this...
There is no way that they will attempt to claim that they invented SSH. Apart from being so easy to disprove (and thus ridicule), it would also go against the current Microsoft policy of working with standards.
...much as it went around declaring how innovative Powershell was, when all it really is is an overly complicated descendant of Bash, inelegant, overly verbose and unnecessarily convoluted.
Once again you have let your hatred and obvious lack of knowledge get the better of you. The basis of Powershell is that it treats everything as an object and is integrated with .NET so that it has access to virtually the same class structures that low level languages have. How it that being a descendant of bash? As you say, it has a verbose naming scheme for its commands and functions. How is that being a descendant of bash? Sure it has aliases to allow common *nix commands, but it also has them to allow CMD.EXE commands too. They are simply there to provide convenient shortcuts. Apart from those helpful aides, everything about Powershell is all its own.
I just hope all the Redmondites see the irony of MS sitting around for two decades declaring NT's superiority because, you know, Windows and all, and now essentially reinventing, badly in many cases, what the Unix ecosystem has had for decades.
For someone who thought that the only remote access that Windows had was telnet and that Powershell was a copy of something that it is almost completely unlike, I think that you need some more education before you can lecture anyone about the shortcomings of Windows.
You are right that Telnet is not much use and very insecure, but it was not the only option for remote access.
Windows has also had Terminal Services (later Remote Desktop Protocol) since Windows NT 4.0, although it required a special server version. Windows 2000 Server had it in standard configuration, and Windows XP had it by default in workstation versions (except for the Home edition). XP also had the WSHContoller object for running Windows Scripting Host scripts remotely, but that was not much use for adhoc work. Finally, Powershell introduced remote interactive consoles in version 2.0 back in 2009.
Remote shells? Yes! But SECURE, Remote shells? They have never had that built-in.
Powershell's remote shell is secure, and that is built-in to Windows.
Backwards compatibility isn't one of the important goals, and in some cases, incompatibility is the goal.
And yet the link you supplied to support this theory states that the AARD code only affected a particular beta version of the operating system. That situation was more about targeting tests than lack of backwards compatibility.
A lot of code that stopped working (for example in the change to Vista) was because the developers did things that were outside the published API and often specifically discouraged by the official documentation. Despite what a lot of people say, Microsoft does work hard to ensure backwards compatibility. I have been able to run programs written for Windows 3.1 on my Windows 7 system. It would probably work on the 32-bit version of Windows 10 too, but I haven't tested that.
So let me get this straight. Windows is getting the kind of terminal support *nix has had for nearly 50 years?
No, Windows has had the kind of terminal support for years, it is just been their own implementations. The difference now is that they are now using the same particular protocol as the *nix world. In other words, they are going from the kind of terminal support to the exact terminal support.
The phrase "cut their emissions" implies they took some sort of positive action to deal with their environmental problems, when in fact all that happened is that they manufactured less and so spewed less pollution.
You didn't even read the article or even the summary before blathering out that nonsense. From TFA:
"Booming renewable energy generation - China was able to reduce fossil fuel fired power generation by 3% while overall power demand increased 0.5% by adding 30GW of wind power and 17GW of solar capacity, a new world record for any country ever."
In what universe does adding "a new world record for any country" amount of renewable energy sources equates to them not taking any positive action to deal with their environmental problem? Perhaps you should do some research rather than just spouting the party line.
Any time that someone links to a Google search as evidence of anything you know that what they are saying is most likely going to be wrong. I don't know what results were coming up in other regions for that search, but for me I get a first result that says that says that only the industrial goods-producing sector of the Chinese economy is in recession, and that "the domestic-oriented service sector is likely to keep growing at low, double-digit rates -- and that should result in real GDP growth of 4 percent to 5 percent". A growth of GDP means that they are not currently in recession.
The next result speculates on a future recession in China, and that "Fears of a sharp slowdown in China's economy ... has rattled global markets in recent months". It later says "while a global recession is not yet reflected in Citi's benchmark forecasts for global or Chinese growth in 2016, it is a view that has gained ground within Citi's global economics team". Once again, speculation and fears of what will happen in the future is not evidence that they are in recession now, and it is not even an immediate prediction that there will be one.
For a more up-to-date quote from the same person at Citigroup, the "in the news" part of the search results had this new article that said "Citi held its growth outlook for China in 2016, but cut it by 0.2 percentage points to 6.0 percent in 2017". That is a forecast of two years of positive growth, a far cry from the technical indicator of a recession of two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth.
China's rate of growth is definitely declining, that is not the same as saying that their growth is actually negative. They may be heading for it at some stage, but not yet. If their economy is moving from a goods producing industry to service providing one then that will have a positive impact on their greenhouse gas emissions. That does not mean that this reduction of emissions is unsustainable, nor that there is any need to "call you later".
I think that you are still looking for excuses to ignore this report so that you can still rely on the old "China pollutes so we shouldn't have to cut our GHG emissions" line.
Had to go back 20 years to find an example so the point stands.
And yet the only actual counter-example that has been given by anybody so far is Lotus 1-2-3 version 2.3, which predates Windows 95 by four years.
I still run a 32-bit Windows 7 system as a games PC so I can run old games. I have been amazed to find games from Windows 95 era work, and been blown away when I found some old Windows 3.1 programs and tried them for a laugh only to find that they too worked.
Of course, these wouldn't work on a 64-bit version of Windows, since they lost the ability to run 16-bit applications. But I don't think that you can say that they are not serious about backwards compatibility simply because they no longer run programs from 2 decades ago.
You can still easily find lots of programs that no longer work, but who is to say that this is just sloppy work from Microsoft instead of the programs themselves doing something that was outside the official documentation, or just stupid things like self-modifying code or programs that assume they have administrator-level access to resources.
For more modern examples of backwards compatibility features in Windows, how about Vista's *File and Registry Virtualization*, which, for example, redirects file writes under Program Files to the users "AppData\Local\VirtualStore\Program Files" folder so old programs that blindly write config and log files alongside their programs will still work. Then there is the ever-growing WinSxS folder full of old versions of DLLs to maintain backwards compatibility. Windows 7 did away with some of the old cruft by making single DLLs that responded to multiple versions.
With all that going on in different versions, it makes me wonder about the truthfulness of the Anonymous Cowards who supposedly worked at Microsoft and who have been claiming that they had never heard backwards compatibility being mentioned there.
It's a shame you had problems, but I haven't had any driver problems from my AMD cards. This includes the 6250-powered APU running Windows 10 that I am using to write this message.
You are wrong. They did not release all the information at one time. What they did say at launch was very vague and incomplete. In fact, they were heavily criticised at the launch for concentrating on the entertainment center features rather than talking about it as a games machine. The gory details that people wanted to know about was simply glossed over or completely ignored, like having to be always online for DRM verses connecting periodically or whether games reselling would be allowed.
The big problem is that they didn't even tell their high level staff all the details, so a lot of the misinformation that was being spread around actually came from Microsoft employees having to wing it during interviews. This meant there were conflicting answers being given by different staff. It also didn't help to have the creative director dismissing concerns outright with #dealwithit. I remember writing at the time about how they could write a textbook on how not to launch a product with all the mistakes Microsoft made.
On the other hand, Sony capitalised on the situation beautifully. They hurriedly rewrote their script for their E3 presentation on the PS4 to specifically address the concerns about the Xbox One and how the their console would not suffer from those problems. Then even made a couple of cheeky videos about them. It did help that they also had the surprisingly better console at a cheaper price. At the same time, Microsoft kept to their script during E3 and failed to address the issues that people had (DRM, privacy, reselling games etc), although at least they concentrated on games rather than spending half the time on TV.
The correct term is that they are drip-feeding information to us. It is a purposeful release of details in small, manageable fashion.
This is the same marketing technique that worked so disastrously for the Xbox One launch, where they held back information to (presumably) try to steer the public discussion away from the more controversial features (eg. the forced online requirements), but which only resulted in us filling in the blanks with rampant speculation.
They could be using this technique this time to keep up the hype for the HoloLens in a non-repetitive way, or they could be attempting to steer us away from the shortcomings of the product (eg. the extremely narrow field of view). Either way, if you don't want to be manipulated, simply ignore this product until it is actually released.
The problem is, NOBODY is doing the complete risk analysis to see if paying Big Pharma is worth the money being poured into Vaccines.
That is totally wrong. People don't start vaccination programs on a whim. The law is very strict on the number and type of medical studies that must be done to allow medicines and vaccines can be sold, and even more to prove their effectiveness , safety, and cost-effectiveness before large scale vaccination programs are implemented.
How many times have you laughed at some scientific study because it seems to be attempting to prove what we already "know"? That is because science does check and recheck everything. They do studies and meta-studies all the time to do risk analyses on drugs to ensure that they do more good than harm. Similarly, the bean counters in government are always looking for ways to reduce medical expenses. There is a constant struggle between what is medically necessary and what is affordable. Accountants don't care if you live or die, as long as you take the cheaper option.
If you seriously think that both medical professionals and accountants would allow a vaccination program that killed double the number of people that they saved then you are misguided and naive. And to spout such erroneous and uneducated claims here is dangerously misleading.
Or it just shows that having the default browser on the dominant OS doesn't mean as much as you think it did. People are used to using the term google as a verb, so it is difficult to dislodge that mindset.
Microsoft isn't going to get humiliated because they didn't meet your expectations. They should be as humiliated as Linux is having such a tiny segment of the desktop market when it is the $free option - and I doubt that this is a position that you would take.
The reason I ask is that according to this website, the genesis of the melody for what we know as "Warm Kitty" (a/k/a "Soft Kitty") SUPPOSEDLY is this relatively ancient (19th Century) Polish children's song. Personally, I don't get it, because, even with my limited ability to read musical notation, it sure doesn't look like the same melody-line, nor is it in the same time-signature.
The melody was adapted from a traditional tune, which means it can be altered to suit new words or a different rhythm. And considering that Edith Newlin thought she was adapting an English folk tune, it is quite reasonable to expect that it had already changed from the "original" version in that manuscript because these sorts of melodies are often handed down as part of an oral tradition and can be affected by the musical version of Chinese whispers.
To my eyes (and ears) the Polish lullaby does appear to be the origin of Warm Kitty. To say that they are too different would be the same as saying that the words "Soft kitty, warm kitty" are different from "Warm kitty, soft kitty".
Finally, I don't mean to be rude but I thought it was so cute that you thought that a 19th century piece would be considered "relatively ancient" (from a musicologist point of view).
So M$ missed the boat on search and social media. They really ought to put their big brains on What's Next in computing, not "re-inventing" one of their dinosaur products.
So the one thing that they didn't miss the boat on (integrated mail/calendaring platform) and you just dismiss it a dinosaur product. And while they might have been late to the search market, they are the second biggest player. It's still respectable to come second the mighty Google.
But the strangest notion that you have is that you think that a company can only work on one product at once. They can easily have one department working on updating Outlook while still researching new markets and finding new ways to ruin Windows.
It's losing, not loosing. Perhaps 2016 needs to be the year we all should buy ourselves a dictionary.
i'd like my laptop to have cpu in the screen part so it can use the lid as its heatsink.
The only problem with putting the workings into the screen is that it makes it top-heavy, which changes the balance when hold it. It can be slightly more prone to falling over too, although none of these problems are really horrendous. I guess if you kept the drive and battery in the base it would counter-balance the computer.
I have an ASUS Transformer Book T100 (which has a detachable screen that can be used as a tablet). The weight problem is not too bad because the entire computer is so light. I do want to try a Surface Book, which also has a detachable screen (and so has to have the CPU in the screen). But it also has an extra battery and graphics processor in the base to give it more grunt when using it in a traditional notebook format. I'm quite keen to see how the balance is with the mix of parts.
You don't need a CAL to access a Windows web server. I think that is what the OP was talking about.
The only reason why a robotic car would be unpredictable is that there are so few if them on the road right now that people aren't used to them. The reasoned, cautious AI driver will be entirely predictable. How many rear-end collisions at lights are because the driver behind assumed that the driver in front would go faster when approaching a yellow light? If people actually did what they were supposed to then the assumption would be that people would not break the law and everyone would drive like an AI car.
The great thing is that the accident rate for human-robot and human-human cars would both go down. Result! Impractical you say? Simply increase the consequences of being caught doing the wrong thing. Take away people's licences more often now. Too harsh? Then don't break the law.
It should be equally safe for 2 cars to be both moving at 70 mph, or both at 30 mph.
That is demonstrably false. It is why we have speed limits in he first place. At the hgher speed the world is coming at you 40mph faster. That includes stationary objects and cars driving perpendicular to you. Your reaction speed and that of the other driver has to be much faster.
If the other car suddenly finds itself heading towards and debris on the road, it is far less likely that it will be able to stop in time. The only course of action might be to swerve or brake sharply. At 70mph you have much less chance of avoiding a collision, and if you get clipped and are sent towards a parked car or tree then the impact force will be much greater and more likely to be fatal.
In every way, 30mph is safer than 70mph.
Please explain how you would build the infrastructure to communicate speed limits to cars. Please include who would pay to build it and maintain it, how cars would get updates, and how the system would work internationally.
Have you even been in a car this decade? The system that you describe is already in place in cars today. We use them to help us navigate, just like the robots do.
I'm typing this on my phone, and it has two applications that can provide comprehensive maps that show exactly where I am and which way I am facing. I can look up maps for cities around the world. I have even used Google Maps to navigate a bike path in the dead of the night. It's like rally driving with the phone telling me which way to turn next. Scary as hell, but fun!
Having speed limits on these maps is trivial. Having context sensitive speed indicators changing with traffic conditions if you use the GPS data from the other cars ahead of you.
Oh there is a reason, it just has nothing to do with safety
Surely this article shows that the speed limit is indeed about safety. If you think that you actually driving at a safe speed and then run into a car that is travelling at the legal limit then obviously you were driving too fast to be able to avoid a hazard on the road. If you travelled slower then you would have more of a chance to see the car, correctly gauge it's speed, and then stop before you ran into it.
Both Windmills and power plants can (and are) disassembled and removed... Which is all I'm saying
And nobody ever said otherwise, only that it is far easier to dismantle one than the other.
You have unstated the difficulty in dismantling a nuclear plant. If was as easy as you claim, why would it cost about $100 million and take 5 years? There is no way that a wind farm would be that hard.
Wind turbines have the ultimate recyclability: reuse. You could easily relocate the entire wind farm to another site with less vocal neighbors.
Tell that to all the rich (liberal) folks who stopped a wind farm in Nantucket...
Sure, why not? Why would it be different for one certain group of people, unless you are trying to make this a political argument to a simple technical statement.