Right, so your theory is that they stuffed a brand new building full of explosives to save a bit of time when it came to demolition in fifty years? And no one ever mentioned it, even after the events of 9/11?
It doesn't appear to violate any of the laws of physics, and at least there are no time-travelling Nazis involved, so I suppose it's not impossible.
Possible - yes Probable - humankind has made some truly dumb decisions made over the years, but in this case on balance, probably not
Thinking about it ( I know, it's probably only feeding some "there must be a consipracy" troll, but I'll press on), in addition to your points, by the 1970s was the first time that skyscrapers were replacing skyscrapers, rather than replacing old, low-rise buildings. So, what if someone thought "wow, these things are really hard to demolish. Since we know this building will be replaced in - call it 50 years - why don't we build in the holes ready to take the demolition charges?" at which point someone then countered with "but why don't we save some effort, and put the charges in now, so we don't have to waste time partially dismantling it to load up the pre-drilled holes with explosive? I mean, what could possibly go wrong? Aircraft crashing into it? Not an issue - a B-25 crashed into the Empire State Building, and it's still standing!" (of course it wasn't built to a budget, and to a new design by a bankrupt city)
In other words, if (and I stress that it is a big, big, "if") someone had thought along those lines, it would be another triumph of stupidity over conspiracy.
I remember that one - it wasn't a crash in the usual sense, where something stops working completely. It was far more insidious than that. Everything still looked as if it was working; the cursor moved when you moved the mouse, icons would highlight if single-clicked, but double-click would refuse to play...
No quite as silly a proposal as you think. Torrents tend to be in 2 kinds - the crappy low quality, shot on a handheld camera, and the perfect, pristine, studio-released screener copy.
So, to prevent piracy, all studios that provide screener copies must be de-listed, as they clearly are actively promoting piracy.
And, by extension, any film ever made by Hollywood is based on a copyright work (even if it's only the screenplay), so they not only promote piracy, they actively produce copyright infringing works. Since Google, Bing et al are bigger than Hollywood, I'll side with the tech guys on this one.
You make some interesting points. However, the Win32 API will probably remain the same. As such, it will be a simple matter of recompiling legacy apps for ARM. I don't see the big problem here?
"Simply recompile" was the argument used to show how portable UNIX was across platforms. However, the end user isn't going to recompile (and the vendor isn't going to hand out the source code to let the end user recompile), so the legacy app just won't work.
(Unless they adopt a true hardware abstraction layer like IBM's AS/400, where the app code was recompiled on the fly for the new architecture on first use. But since x86 apps weren't distributed that way, then it won't happen)
I believe in the benefits of copyrights. Most of my Web pages are copyrighted. However, the current state of intellectual law is unacceptable. Extending copyright coverage to 90 years (Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998) violates the concept of "limited Times". The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) stifles innovation instead of promoting it. And the primary beneficiaries of these laws are not "Authors and Inventors" but corporate publishers, movie studios, and record companies who reap the bounty of others' creativity. If you agree that this situation is intolerable, tell your representatives and senators in Congress.
I copied the above paragraph from one of my own copyrighted Web pages (with a slight modification in the second sentence). I hereby grant to the public the right to quote that paragraph at will, in all contexts, and in all media.
It was used as a prop in a movie. Nobody thinks that's real, like the whiskey and champagne they supposedly drink in the movies, it's just a prop. I'd be amazed if they'd spend the insane amounts of money for one of those ugly bags, when they can get something that looks the same on film for a tenth or less the price.
It may be "something that looks the same", but if they didn't ask LV for permission, then it is IP infringement.
Of course, your argument is based on logic and common sense, something lacking in the murky world of IP 'protection'
I'd go with Engineer D - for not "continuing the trend of smaller". The F-22 is pretty much the same size as the F-15 (62ft long with 44ft wingspan for the Raptor). And still around the same size (though with a larger wingspan) than the F-4 Phantom II.
And, going back further, the F-86 Sabre was 37ft long; 37ft wingspan, roughly the same size as the P-51 Mustang.
Most economic models are based on "how we would like people to act" rather than "how people actually act". Much of the time, the model works, but they fail when people act in irrational ways.
"Obviously there was more going on than just the sudden change in tone in the IRA's communications and actions immediately after 9/11"
Seriously? You think that a bunch of Saudi extremists in 2001 made a bunch of Northern Irish extremists think again about what they had been doing?
Changes started happening with things like the Good Friday Agreement - in 1998 (and events that made even that possible predated that by a number of years)
It's more like "don't bother competing with them on their terms"
When the iPod first came out ("No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame"), everyone thought it was just about the hardware, so concentrated on the technical specs. By the time it was realised that it was about the whole "Here's a way to manage your music that's easier than doing it by hand", they'd already cleaned up. The problem is, that once one company is dominant, their "new model" is now the "old model", so merely doing the same won't work.
It's not new either: Old model: buy a computer, and then install the operating system. New model: buy a PC, and the OS is pre-installed. (Microsoft's first big win) Competing on their terms and losing: buy an IBM PC, and get OS/2
Old model: buy your preferred word processor (WordPerfect or WordStar). Buy your preferred spreadsheet (Lotus 1-2-3 or SuperCalc). Maybe buy a drawing / presentation program (DrawPerfect or Harvard Graphics) New model: buy a suite, and you get the wordprocessor, spreadsheet and presentation software for just over the price of one of them. (Microsoft's second big win) Competing on their terms and losing: WordPerfect Office, Lotus SmartSuite
So, HP needed to do more than "tablet plus apps available", as that was just competing on their terms and losing.
Bravo! Your post (and the parent) neatly encapsulate both the "for" and "against" arguments. For some businesses, the points you raise will be paramount, and hence they (should, provided the PHBs don't get involved) stick with their own servers and staff.
For others, the lower initial costs will be the attraction, and hence they will go Cloud.
Exchange is the mail standard, and if a phone doesn't work with ActiveSync, it will not sell past the consumer market.
Almost a cunning plan. Except that increasingly, people want to use their consumer phone with the corporate email (and if they are high enough up the food chain, will demand IT make it so). Also, the refresh rates in the corporate sphere are not as fast as consumer. So, it would make a decent amount of money for MSFT, but not as much as the potential to be had in the consumer market.
Windows technically wasn't an OS until Win 95 (although admittedly, it was kind of blurred by the time Windows 3.0 came out). Indeed, "MS-DOS Executive" was File Manager under another name (and was also, IIRC, available in MS-DOS 4.01 and possibly still there in MS-DOS 5.0)
Old OS in a VM. Hmmm. Now, old MacOS (pre OS 9.0) in a VM without using ROM iamges - that would be something
Slashdot Mirror
Can Microsoft and Nokia really afford to be the "also rans" until October? (assuming that the marketing $ to accompany WP8 boost its share)
By then, the iPhone 5 will likely be out; Samsung will have a new Galaxy. New WP phones will need to be pretty kick ass to make a dent in that.
I am going to revert that comment, it's unsourced!
[citation needed]
Right, so your theory is that they stuffed a brand new building full of explosives to save a bit of time when it came to demolition in fifty years? And no one ever mentioned it, even after the events of 9/11?
It doesn't appear to violate any of the laws of physics, and at least there are no time-travelling Nazis involved, so I suppose it's not impossible.
Possible - yes
Probable - humankind has made some truly dumb decisions made over the years, but in this case on balance, probably not
Thinking about it ( I know, it's probably only feeding some "there must be a consipracy" troll, but I'll press on), in addition to your points, by the 1970s was the first time that skyscrapers were replacing skyscrapers, rather than replacing old, low-rise buildings. So, what if someone thought "wow, these things are really hard to demolish. Since we know this building will be replaced in - call it 50 years - why don't we build in the holes ready to take the demolition charges?" at which point someone then countered with "but why don't we save some effort, and put the charges in now, so we don't have to waste time partially dismantling it to load up the pre-drilled holes with explosive? I mean, what could possibly go wrong? Aircraft crashing into it? Not an issue - a B-25 crashed into the Empire State Building, and it's still standing!" (of course it wasn't built to a budget, and to a new design by a bankrupt city)
In other words, if (and I stress that it is a big, big, "if") someone had thought along those lines, it would be another triumph of stupidity over conspiracy.
Service guarantees citizenship
Ah, thanks for that. I knew that powers of 2 featured somewhere along the line
It was 49.7 days: http://news.cnet.com/Windows-may-crash-after-49.7-days/2100-1040_3-222391.html
And still inexcusable.
I remember that one - it wasn't a crash in the usual sense, where something stops working completely. It was far more insidious than that. Everything still looked as if it was working; the cursor moved when you moved the mouse, icons would highlight if single-clicked, but double-click would refuse to play...
IIRC, the 49.7 days is 2^16 seconds
I like this plan. Copyright fees would cross $1,000,000 by 20 years.
If Disney was to renew their Mickey Mouse copyright this year, it would cost them $19,342,813,113,834,066,795,298,816.
Now you know why they wanted that $45 trillion anti-piracy lawsuit - preparing for the day when they are forced to pay for copyright in those terms
No quite as silly a proposal as you think. Torrents tend to be in 2 kinds - the crappy low quality, shot on a handheld camera, and the perfect, pristine, studio-released screener copy.
So, to prevent piracy, all studios that provide screener copies must be de-listed, as they clearly are actively promoting piracy.
And, by extension, any film ever made by Hollywood is based on a copyright work (even if it's only the screenplay), so they not only promote piracy, they actively produce copyright infringing works. Since Google, Bing et al are bigger than Hollywood, I'll side with the tech guys on this one.
You make some interesting points. However, the Win32 API will probably remain the same. As such, it will be a simple matter of recompiling legacy apps for ARM. I don't see the big problem here?
"Simply recompile" was the argument used to show how portable UNIX was across platforms. However, the end user isn't going to recompile (and the vendor isn't going to hand out the source code to let the end user recompile), so the legacy app just won't work.
(Unless they adopt a true hardware abstraction layer like IBM's AS/400, where the app code was recompiled on the fly for the new architecture on first use. But since x86 apps weren't distributed that way, then it won't happen)
Nuke 'em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Or is that Aliens....
I believe in the benefits of copyrights. Most of my Web pages are copyrighted. However, the current state of intellectual law is unacceptable. Extending copyright coverage to 90 years (Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998) violates the concept of "limited Times". The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) stifles innovation instead of promoting it. And the primary beneficiaries of these laws are not "Authors and Inventors" but corporate publishers, movie studios, and record companies who reap the bounty of others' creativity. If you agree that this situation is intolerable, tell your representatives and senators in Congress.
I copied the above paragraph from one of my own copyrighted Web pages (with a slight modification in the second sentence). I hereby grant to the public the right to quote that paragraph at will, in all contexts, and in all media.
Duly quoted! :-)
So... is the Study of the Public Domain itself in the public domain (through Creative Commons licencing), or is it copyright too?
It was used as a prop in a movie. Nobody thinks that's real, like the whiskey and champagne they supposedly drink in the movies, it's just a prop. I'd be amazed if they'd spend the insane amounts of money for one of those ugly bags, when they can get something that looks the same on film for a tenth or less the price.
It may be "something that looks the same", but if they didn't ask LV for permission, then it is IP infringement.
Of course, your argument is based on logic and common sense, something lacking in the murky world of IP 'protection'
Some excellent points there.
I'd go with Engineer D - for not "continuing the trend of smaller". The F-22 is pretty much the same size as the F-15 (62ft long with 44ft wingspan for the Raptor). And still around the same size (though with a larger wingspan) than the F-4 Phantom II.
And, going back further, the F-86 Sabre was 37ft long; 37ft wingspan, roughly the same size as the P-51 Mustang.
Most economic models are based on "how we would like people to act" rather than "how people actually act". Much of the time, the model works, but they fail when people act in irrational ways.
Simples.
Because Google uses a time machine. Each iteration of Android copies, imperfectly, features from future versions of iOS.
I thought it was Apple that had the Time Machine...
Not bad. Comes across as better than some of The Onion's stuff. Funnier too...
"Obviously there was more going on than just the sudden change in tone in the IRA's communications and actions immediately after 9/11"
Seriously? You think that a bunch of Saudi extremists in 2001 made a bunch of Northern Irish extremists think again about what they had been doing?
Changes started happening with things like the Good Friday Agreement - in 1998 (and events that made even that possible predated that by a number of years)
It's more like "don't bother competing with them on their terms"
When the iPod first came out ("No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame"), everyone thought it was just about the hardware, so concentrated on the technical specs. By the time it was realised that it was about the whole "Here's a way to manage your music that's easier than doing it by hand", they'd already cleaned up. The problem is, that once one company is dominant, their "new model" is now the "old model", so merely doing the same won't work.
It's not new either:
Old model: buy a computer, and then install the operating system.
New model: buy a PC, and the OS is pre-installed. (Microsoft's first big win)
Competing on their terms and losing: buy an IBM PC, and get OS/2
Old model: buy your preferred word processor (WordPerfect or WordStar). Buy your preferred spreadsheet (Lotus 1-2-3 or SuperCalc). Maybe buy a drawing / presentation program (DrawPerfect or Harvard Graphics)
New model: buy a suite, and you get the wordprocessor, spreadsheet and presentation software for just over the price of one of them. (Microsoft's second big win)
Competing on their terms and losing: WordPerfect Office, Lotus SmartSuite
So, HP needed to do more than "tablet plus apps available", as that was just competing on their terms and losing.
Ooh I love it when someone brings an old piece of flamebait up to date :-)
Even including the details of inconsistent spelling. Genius!
Bravo! Your post (and the parent) neatly encapsulate both the "for" and "against" arguments. For some businesses, the points you raise will be paramount, and hence they (should, provided the PHBs don't get involved) stick with their own servers and staff.
For others, the lower initial costs will be the attraction, and hence they will go Cloud.
Depends on the needs of the business, though.
Exchange is the mail standard, and if a phone doesn't work with ActiveSync, it will not sell past the consumer market.
Almost a cunning plan. Except that increasingly, people want to use their consumer phone with the corporate email (and if they are high enough up the food chain, will demand IT make it so).
Also, the refresh rates in the corporate sphere are not as fast as consumer.
So, it would make a decent amount of money for MSFT, but not as much as the potential to be had in the consumer market.
Windows technically wasn't an OS until Win 95 (although admittedly, it was kind of blurred by the time Windows 3.0 came out). Indeed, "MS-DOS Executive" was File Manager under another name (and was also, IIRC, available in MS-DOS 4.01 and possibly still there in MS-DOS 5.0)
Old OS in a VM. Hmmm. Now, old MacOS (pre OS 9.0) in a VM without using ROM iamges - that would be something
So I see Slashdot stories on my Facebook feed.
Including the story (on Facebook) of Slashdot commenting that Facebook was down.
Except that it wasn't (or I wouldn't have seen the story)
Holy recursive effect!