Not your fault, people use the wrong word for it. The dark side is light as much as the light side. The moon is tidally locked to the Earth, not the sun. "dark" would imply the reverse.
I remember reading about it in the local newspaper. Or is The Dallas Morning News an industry specific journal? Perhaps my proximity to Dell found the local papers getting more off-the-record comments than places like California, where there were no makers left by that point to talk about the MS tax.
It was also replayed in national news when Intel was losing to AMD for anti-trust reasons. OEMs that sold one MS license per computer were given beneficial pricing to help squeeze out any offerings of free OSs.
That you are illiterate and didn't see it doesn't mean it wasn't there.
I occasionally have to use Windows, and I'm amazed that the user experience has actually gotten much worse from about 10 years ago. I can't figure out how to use the damn thing anymore! Office was perfected about 10 years ago, but yet MS just keeps changing the UI around and re-selling the thing over and over, then tying it into other MS products so you have to buy the damn thing again.
But it's much easier for my children to do things in Win8 than it was for me with Win1.0.
Outlook and Exchange are probbably the worst MS products ever created. But businesses are somehow addicted to them like heroin.
The worst things MS ever made, but still many times better than the competition. That's why they are used. I remember Exchange 2000, where weekly server rebuilds were common (there were many many servers, don't ask, it was there when I got there, I just got to maintain them). But the user features were unmatched. Online/offline transparency, shared calendars/email boxes with granular permissions. You could do some of those with other packages, but at that time, none could do all of them, or even most. No I didn't list all the differences, just a few key ones.
The Explorer windows and system menus were rendered by the IE engine. Remove IE and break the GUI. CHM wasn't the issue. That's just a proprietary HTML file. That's unrelated to the issue. Most browsers these days will save a page into a single file, CHM was just a crude precurser to that functionality.
I thought it was "stolen" as MS did a joint project with IBM for OS/2, then MS pulled out, taking "their" code with them, the code being jointly worked code. The "theft" is that MS comitted fraud by entering into a contract they intended to break, because the penalties were not as bad as the gain (yes, a poorly worded contract, but I've been informed that entering a contract with the intention of breaking it is fraud, even if you intend to abide by the breach conditions).
Though what really amazes me is that I typoed OS/2 as SO/2 and nobody made fun of me. Yes, I posted while doing other things.
Not that such behavior is exclusive to Microsoft, big corporations often do strange/immoral things.
Citation needed.
If you are going to demand a citation for something that was a common news item at the time, why should you expect any more polite treatment in return?
IE could not removed because it was needed for core functionality. Resources are addressed by IE. Removing IE (without building a new Explorer to take its place) would break OS functionality. The problem with IE was that if you installed a 3rd party browser and set it as default, depending on how you opened a URL, you'd still end up in IE. That's a subset of functionality that could have been more directly addressed. But that was my core problem with IE and why MS deserved to lose the suit.
Nobody said they had to remove the actual rendering code, but that they had to remove the "explorer is Internet Explorer" functionality (though the code being removed as proof of removal was brought up later after judgments against MS). If a URL typed in at the explorer window would have opened in the default browser, rather than forcing IE above default settings, they probably would have weathered challenges better. Even if they had to call IE long enough to call the default browser and then close IE (with no analytics gathered or sent), they probably could have gotten away with it.
The real antitrust issue I saw with it was that if you set a default browser, depending on how you called a URL, Windows would use IE, and ignore the system settings. *That* is why it was "unistallable". The issue wasn't whether the code was there to render the desktop. The issue was whether you could actually use the default 3rd party browser you installed. At least to me.
He was trying to make a funny. But it was so subtle, it missed. Ever call in a management consulting firm? They *always* recommend "core competency" and such. But oh yes, their brother just happens to run a consultant/outsourcing firm that can handle their payroll or IT or both. Consultants recommend that which makes consultants the most money. They have a vested interest in pushing work to consultants. IBM is one of the worst. Along with almost as bads like Accenture, and many more like them.
There must be a conflicting regulation. There are many (lighting being a big one). In fact, thinking about the laser headlights, they'll probably save millions by not having to have separate lamps/reflectors for RHD vs LHD and LHD Europe vs LHD US. They may not save anything per lamp, but could save millions in parts, tooling, and such.
But in the US, I've never seen a car made since 1980 that didn't lock the steering when turned off, with the key still in the ignition. And yes, that includes German cars. Though I have never driven a Saab. They had always done the locks differently, but I didn't ever drive my friend's '87 900.
I've never heard of any American car with the behavior mentioned, nor Japanese. The only German car I've owned was a modified 911, and a previous owner defeated the steering lock completely, as well as the clutch interlock, so hardly representative. Given every car you've listed is European, it doesn't necessarily apply to the US. Have you tried a 2004 Audi A3 in the US? I've tried an (older) Golf in the US, and it locks when "off" and the key is in.
They were doing stuff like that long before some genius had the idea of getting rid of the throttle cable.
Yeah, the more modern throttle-cable systems were essentially throttle by wire with a placebo for those that liked to see a throttle cable. The guy that got rid of the throttle cable saved money and weight, but didn't change the operation of the car. I'm sure someone could put a spring-loaded cable in your car, if you liked.
I've never ridden a Harley, I prefer cheaper, faster and more comfortable bikes, but every bike I have ridden has a kill switch reachable by the right thumb. Letting go to turn off the bike is a rider error. Pull the clutch and coast down with a loud engine is better than panicking the way your brother did. Hell, putting the kick stand down would have killed the engine (no, you don't have to get it far before it kills the engine, so it wouldn't cause a control issue unless he was in a tight left turn when he tried).
He wasn't hurt from his throttle sticking, he was hurt from his reaction to it. He sounds like he shouldn't be riding anyway. Why is it when mechanical failure occurs, people are so afraid to let the engines rev high?
Your car, your year (presuming you have a key-based ignition and an '80s or newer car). Try it, go turn your car on. Turn the wheel. Turn the key to ignition position "off" (your words) - not standby - "off". Turn the wheel.
Let us know how that goes. Also, if you come back with the "I really meant "standby" or accessory", note that most people in such a panic situation would turn the car off forcefully and in a panic mode, and end up in the "off" position.
We'll be waiting, let us know how it worked in your car.
I've not driven many past 2000, but before that, I've never been in a "modern" car that didn't lock the steering when "off". Well, unless you go back really far. My '67 Bug didn't lock the steering.
There must be a bunch of poor coders on slashdot. Piles of people constantly defend the idea that there can *never* be useful software without bugs. It always sounds more like excuses than proof.
Which do that? For the Mercedes system, it stops the car and alerts you (the one that's actually in production). Perhaps you are selectively thinking about some prototype systems still in development, but then why select just the ones you like least and assert them to be the usual case? Seems like Ludditism to me.
It's easier for a computer to dodge a pedestrian than a person. Often the person will steer for the most open space, which is the same place the pedestrian goes. That's not the most effective dodge. The optimal dodge is to stop in a straight line, regardless of the location of the pedestrian. Unless the pedestrian is elderly, in which case, adjust slightly to avoid them, and brake as hard as possible. Neither is the "human" reaction. People steer, rather than brake. I'm not sure why, but braking is almost always better than steering. Cars stop much faster than people think. People prefer to drive at about 0.1g, starting, steering, and stopping. Most cars will do more than 1g stopping. But people aim for about 1/10th that or a regular basis, and think 2-3 times that is "very hard". I've dropped the anchor a few times for my passengers to feel what a car can do (always safely, of course).
Slashdot Mirror
Not your fault, people use the wrong word for it. The dark side is light as much as the light side. The moon is tidally locked to the Earth, not the sun. "dark" would imply the reverse.
So what orbital pattern results in the Earth never eclipsing the sun?
Putting solar panels on the moon seems silly. They would collect twice the energy if they were placed in orbit.
Why is that? The moon has no atmosphere to get in the way.
According to TFA, the materials would come from earth,
The article is wrong and contradicts the official materials by the company in question.
Also, what happens when there is a lunar eclipse?
Power output will be lower for a few hours every 6 months or so. Doesn't sound like a big issue.
I remember reading about it in the local newspaper. Or is The Dallas Morning News an industry specific journal? Perhaps my proximity to Dell found the local papers getting more off-the-record comments than places like California, where there were no makers left by that point to talk about the MS tax.
It was also replayed in national news when Intel was losing to AMD for anti-trust reasons. OEMs that sold one MS license per computer were given beneficial pricing to help squeeze out any offerings of free OSs.
That you are illiterate and didn't see it doesn't mean it wasn't there.
There was no need to embrace and extend HTML, but if you have to render multiple somethings, why not have one engine rendering more than one thing?
I occasionally have to use Windows, and I'm amazed that the user experience has actually gotten much worse from about 10 years ago. I can't figure out how to use the damn thing anymore! Office was perfected about 10 years ago, but yet MS just keeps changing the UI around and re-selling the thing over and over, then tying it into other MS products so you have to buy the damn thing again.
But it's much easier for my children to do things in Win8 than it was for me with Win1.0.
Outlook and Exchange are probbably the worst MS products ever created. But businesses are somehow addicted to them like heroin.
The worst things MS ever made, but still many times better than the competition. That's why they are used. I remember Exchange 2000, where weekly server rebuilds were common (there were many many servers, don't ask, it was there when I got there, I just got to maintain them). But the user features were unmatched. Online/offline transparency, shared calendars/email boxes with granular permissions. You could do some of those with other packages, but at that time, none could do all of them, or even most. No I didn't list all the differences, just a few key ones.
The Explorer windows and system menus were rendered by the IE engine. Remove IE and break the GUI. CHM wasn't the issue. That's just a proprietary HTML file. That's unrelated to the issue. Most browsers these days will save a page into a single file, CHM was just a crude precurser to that functionality.
I thought it was "stolen" as MS did a joint project with IBM for OS/2, then MS pulled out, taking "their" code with them, the code being jointly worked code. The "theft" is that MS comitted fraud by entering into a contract they intended to break, because the penalties were not as bad as the gain (yes, a poorly worded contract, but I've been informed that entering a contract with the intention of breaking it is fraud, even if you intend to abide by the breach conditions).
Though what really amazes me is that I typoed OS/2 as SO/2 and nobody made fun of me. Yes, I posted while doing other things.
Citation needed.
Not that such behavior is exclusive to Microsoft, big corporations often do strange/immoral things.
Citation needed.
If you are going to demand a citation for something that was a common news item at the time, why should you expect any more polite treatment in return?
IE could not removed because it was needed for core functionality. Resources are addressed by IE. Removing IE (without building a new Explorer to take its place) would break OS functionality. The problem with IE was that if you installed a 3rd party browser and set it as default, depending on how you opened a URL, you'd still end up in IE. That's a subset of functionality that could have been more directly addressed. But that was my core problem with IE and why MS deserved to lose the suit.
Nobody said they had to remove the actual rendering code, but that they had to remove the "explorer is Internet Explorer" functionality (though the code being removed as proof of removal was brought up later after judgments against MS). If a URL typed in at the explorer window would have opened in the default browser, rather than forcing IE above default settings, they probably would have weathered challenges better. Even if they had to call IE long enough to call the default browser and then close IE (with no analytics gathered or sent), they probably could have gotten away with it.
The real antitrust issue I saw with it was that if you set a default browser, depending on how you called a URL, Windows would use IE, and ignore the system settings. *That* is why it was "unistallable". The issue wasn't whether the code was there to render the desktop. The issue was whether you could actually use the default 3rd party browser you installed. At least to me.
VMS code stolen from DEC? Wait, I thought NT was the stolen SO/2 code from IBM?
Comparing genocide with doing business?
The holocaust is great for analogies of all types. It's the prime example of "the worst thing ever", so it makes a good benchmark.
Completely undermining?!?
Is "Subverting through bribery and extortion" better?
He was trying to make a funny. But it was so subtle, it missed. Ever call in a management consulting firm? They *always* recommend "core competency" and such. But oh yes, their brother just happens to run a consultant/outsourcing firm that can handle their payroll or IT or both. Consultants recommend that which makes consultants the most money. They have a vested interest in pushing work to consultants. IBM is one of the worst. Along with almost as bads like Accenture, and many more like them.
So keeping his hands on his handlebars would have been much less safe? Do you even know how to ride? Or are you just an angry idiot?
There must be a conflicting regulation. There are many (lighting being a big one). In fact, thinking about the laser headlights, they'll probably save millions by not having to have separate lamps/reflectors for RHD vs LHD and LHD Europe vs LHD US. They may not save anything per lamp, but could save millions in parts, tooling, and such.
But in the US, I've never seen a car made since 1980 that didn't lock the steering when turned off, with the key still in the ignition. And yes, that includes German cars. Though I have never driven a Saab. They had always done the locks differently, but I didn't ever drive my friend's '87 900.
I've never heard of any American car with the behavior mentioned, nor Japanese. The only German car I've owned was a modified 911, and a previous owner defeated the steering lock completely, as well as the clutch interlock, so hardly representative. Given every car you've listed is European, it doesn't necessarily apply to the US. Have you tried a 2004 Audi A3 in the US? I've tried an (older) Golf in the US, and it locks when "off" and the key is in.
Are the cars in question vacuum assist? I remember the same arguments flying around back when Audi had issues.
Is there any engine driven pump in a drive by wire car?
They were doing stuff like that long before some genius had the idea of getting rid of the throttle cable.
Yeah, the more modern throttle-cable systems were essentially throttle by wire with a placebo for those that liked to see a throttle cable. The guy that got rid of the throttle cable saved money and weight, but didn't change the operation of the car. I'm sure someone could put a spring-loaded cable in your car, if you liked.
I've never ridden a Harley, I prefer cheaper, faster and more comfortable bikes, but every bike I have ridden has a kill switch reachable by the right thumb. Letting go to turn off the bike is a rider error. Pull the clutch and coast down with a loud engine is better than panicking the way your brother did. Hell, putting the kick stand down would have killed the engine (no, you don't have to get it far before it kills the engine, so it wouldn't cause a control issue unless he was in a tight left turn when he tried).
He wasn't hurt from his throttle sticking, he was hurt from his reaction to it. He sounds like he shouldn't be riding anyway. Why is it when mechanical failure occurs, people are so afraid to let the engines rev high?
Your car, your year (presuming you have a key-based ignition and an '80s or newer car). Try it, go turn your car on. Turn the wheel. Turn the key to ignition position "off" (your words) - not standby - "off". Turn the wheel.
Let us know how that goes. Also, if you come back with the "I really meant "standby" or accessory", note that most people in such a panic situation would turn the car off forcefully and in a panic mode, and end up in the "off" position.
We'll be waiting, let us know how it worked in your car.
I've not driven many past 2000, but before that, I've never been in a "modern" car that didn't lock the steering when "off". Well, unless you go back really far. My '67 Bug didn't lock the steering.
There must be a bunch of poor coders on slashdot. Piles of people constantly defend the idea that there can *never* be useful software without bugs. It always sounds more like excuses than proof.
Which do that? For the Mercedes system, it stops the car and alerts you (the one that's actually in production). Perhaps you are selectively thinking about some prototype systems still in development, but then why select just the ones you like least and assert them to be the usual case? Seems like Ludditism to me.
It's easier for a computer to dodge a pedestrian than a person. Often the person will steer for the most open space, which is the same place the pedestrian goes. That's not the most effective dodge. The optimal dodge is to stop in a straight line, regardless of the location of the pedestrian. Unless the pedestrian is elderly, in which case, adjust slightly to avoid them, and brake as hard as possible. Neither is the "human" reaction. People steer, rather than brake. I'm not sure why, but braking is almost always better than steering. Cars stop much faster than people think. People prefer to drive at about 0.1g, starting, steering, and stopping. Most cars will do more than 1g stopping. But people aim for about 1/10th that or a regular basis, and think 2-3 times that is "very hard". I've dropped the anchor a few times for my passengers to feel what a car can do (always safely, of course).