... was its Office productivity software. Once this was not needed, then Android, iOS and any other platfor would do the job. To properly use Office apps, you need a keyboard. I don't mean poke out the occasional e-mail on a tablet. I mean create documents, diagrams, etc. in an environment where productivity counts. The attempt to push a touch screen interface on to content creators was demonstrated by the 'Windows Hate' reaction.
Tablets and PCs (OK, laptops too) are different markets, best served by different UIs and maybe operating systems. If Microsoft wants to resurect the PC, a tablet is the wrong form factor.
Right. But engineering isn't supposed to put it that way. 'Impaired or no control authority over aircraft pitch and yaw' would be technically accurate.
But when the item of cloning comes in the news, suddenly people back away and ask what it's all good for. Because us humans are not allowed to mess with that.
And then there's the people who buy SUVs and have them lowered. What's up with that?
Or create species that we can't get rid of and end up replacing good species that we want.
Not a problem. They make this sticky paper you can leave around. Come back in a while and all the mammoths will be stuck to it. Then just throw in garbage.
Oh, they've got a good reason. Marketing wants to reduce the expectations of the users. 20 years ago, I could run video over networked X and run a remote CATIA session on my Linux desktop. So why can't you run your precious Auotocad or Adobe suite apps over X? Per seat licenses.
20 years ago, when Microsoft was a joke in the engineering world, things worked fine. And then they (and other vendors, no fair picking on only MS) tried to convince management that every seat needed an office productivity suite. Some poor slobs ended up with two systems on their desk, or dual booted Windows/Linux. And then our IT department got smart. Citrix offered a product that could export a Windows session from an NT server as an X client. So the few times I needed to run Word or Excel, I could just start a Windows desktop as a single client on my Linux system. Our IT people loved it. MS systems could be administrated at the central server location. Management loved it. For most of us (~5000 engineers) aproximately 1 license was needed per 10 people. But Microsoft (and others) shit themselves because it cut into their sales.
For all the persuasion end users are getting to go Wayland, multiply that by 10 to see the pressure app developers will be under to drop X and go with the local only solution. One license per seat. And once X is forgotten about, management won't have an example to hold up and ask why vernors can't come up with a more cost effective solution.
For most of the neck-beards playing video games in their parents' basement, it doesn't matter. But this is where I think Linux distros need to fork and provide one platform for the kiddies and one for business.
Most Linux desktops have lacked network transparency since the mid 90s in favour of nasty fallback hacks and rendering in different ways depending on the target server.
Nope. I've used Linux desktops since the 90s with X clients running on numerous platforms. Many of which were developed not even knowing what Linux was. So the need for server specific 'hacks' could never have been satisfied. And Linux works just fine, thanks.
Yep. My old Vizio is dying, so I'm looking for a replacement. I watch only OTA (digital) broadcasts. One feature of the old TV is a 24 hour on screen program guide. Most OTA digital signals include this programming data in their broadcast stream. So I went to the TV store looking for a new one with the same feature. Not available. If you want any such features, you must now connect your TV to the Internet. Or its crippled.
Centrifuge. As soon as the mouse starts running, the rotation is detected and a motor kicked on to drive the RPM up to 50 or 60K. Mouse parts get squeezed through bars on wheel.
Now pardon me while I go back to eating my breakfast.
What might be effective is a law that could go after private entities for divulging third party data or providing access to it without a warrant. In other words, slap the cuffs on AT&T, Cisco and other executives. Immunity from prosecution only if they testify under oath about the details of monitoring programs they were coerced into.
I would have made a constitutional argument in court
Good luck rounding up legal representation from a cell in Gitmo. Any attempt to make a legal argument around the details of NSA's request would have them shut down as hindering national security. Push the issue and you're a terrorist and off to a little resort in the Caribbean for you.
I believe it is. As a part of your liability coverage, to the extent that civil law would hold you liable for creating such a hazard. And after all the risks and financial exposure are calculated, it falls down into the noise level of typical liabilities. Not worth a seperate rider. Unlike a swiming pool, for example.
Shhhh. Don't tell the gun grabbers. They already are.
My liability coverage (a part of many homeowners policies and also available as blanket liability coverage) already covers this. I asked an insurance agent once if owning guns would be reflected in an increase in liability premiums. He said it was statistically insignificant. What does concern insurance companies is large, expensive gun collections that they have to cover for theft.
But now if you bring this up as a mandate, insurance regulators could easily tack on a 'political premium' to state regulated policies.
That's a touchy subject in the engineering world. The duty to report life safety issues (particularly outside of the organization) often runs up against complying with an employer's policies and procedures. Since there is a manufacturing exception to license requirements in most states, pushing this issue would discourage companies from hiring P.E.s. I don't think you want to live in a world where potentially dangerous products are designed by people with an upper boundary on their knowledge and experience.
This is a good point. Although I think publishing an (internal) list is a pretty simplistic way of dealing with this.
When I worked in the engineering department at Boeing, we were expected to write all of our memos clearly and concisely, using proper technical terminology, avoiding hyperbole and lots of adjectives. And to confine our writing to our area of expertise. For example, we could write that such-and-such an event could lead to the failure of some critical function or component. We would not write that the result would be an airplane crash. Because even if the tail falls off the airplane,... I mean the empennage departs the airframe, a skilled pilot may still be able to land sucessfully.
But since you don't believe in global warming, I guess my carbon footprint doesn't matter, does it?
Nope. And neither do you if we catch you outside city limits, living in the mountains. You'll just be one of those "I've got mine, now save the rest of the wilderness" people. No credibility.
Slashdot Mirror
Tablets and PCs (OK, laptops too) are different markets, best served by different UIs and maybe operating systems. If Microsoft wants to resurect the PC, a tablet is the wrong form factor.
Crack?
So we turn al Qaida into the Hewlett-Packard of terrorist organizations.
Only if AT&T files a complaint. Odds are they will say it is 'voluntary' to avoid reprisals by the federal government.
Right. But engineering isn't supposed to put it that way. 'Impaired or no control authority over aircraft pitch and yaw' would be technically accurate.
But when the item of cloning comes in the news, suddenly people back away and ask what it's all good for. Because us humans are not allowed to mess with that.
And then there's the people who buy SUVs and have them lowered. What's up with that?
Don't worry about it. Haters gonna hate.
Or create species that we can't get rid of and end up replacing good species that we want.
Not a problem. They make this sticky paper you can leave around. Come back in a while and all the mammoths will be stuck to it. Then just throw in garbage.
n/t
People want to break this for no good reason,
Oh, they've got a good reason. Marketing wants to reduce the expectations of the users. 20 years ago, I could run video over networked X and run a remote CATIA session on my Linux desktop. So why can't you run your precious Auotocad or Adobe suite apps over X? Per seat licenses.
20 years ago, when Microsoft was a joke in the engineering world, things worked fine. And then they (and other vendors, no fair picking on only MS) tried to convince management that every seat needed an office productivity suite. Some poor slobs ended up with two systems on their desk, or dual booted Windows/Linux. And then our IT department got smart. Citrix offered a product that could export a Windows session from an NT server as an X client. So the few times I needed to run Word or Excel, I could just start a Windows desktop as a single client on my Linux system. Our IT people loved it. MS systems could be administrated at the central server location. Management loved it. For most of us (~5000 engineers) aproximately 1 license was needed per 10 people. But Microsoft (and others) shit themselves because it cut into their sales.
For all the persuasion end users are getting to go Wayland, multiply that by 10 to see the pressure app developers will be under to drop X and go with the local only solution. One license per seat. And once X is forgotten about, management won't have an example to hold up and ask why vernors can't come up with a more cost effective solution.
For most of the neck-beards playing video games in their parents' basement, it doesn't matter. But this is where I think Linux distros need to fork and provide one platform for the kiddies and one for business.
Most Linux desktops have lacked network transparency since the mid 90s in favour of nasty fallback hacks and rendering in different ways depending on the target server.
Nope. I've used Linux desktops since the 90s with X clients running on numerous platforms. Many of which were developed not even knowing what Linux was. So the need for server specific 'hacks' could never have been satisfied. And Linux works just fine, thanks.
Yep. My old Vizio is dying, so I'm looking for a replacement. I watch only OTA (digital) broadcasts. One feature of the old TV is a 24 hour on screen program guide. Most OTA digital signals include this programming data in their broadcast stream. So I went to the TV store looking for a new one with the same feature. Not available. If you want any such features, you must now connect your TV to the Internet. Or its crippled.
I used to work for a company just like that.
Centrifuge. As soon as the mouse starts running, the rotation is detected and a motor kicked on to drive the RPM up to 50 or 60K. Mouse parts get squeezed through bars on wheel.
Now pardon me while I go back to eating my breakfast.
This is a good point.
What might be effective is a law that could go after private entities for divulging third party data or providing access to it without a warrant. In other words, slap the cuffs on AT&T, Cisco and other executives. Immunity from prosecution only if they testify under oath about the details of monitoring programs they were coerced into.
I would have made a constitutional argument in court
Good luck rounding up legal representation from a cell in Gitmo. Any attempt to make a legal argument around the details of NSA's request would have them shut down as hindering national security. Push the issue and you're a terrorist and off to a little resort in the Caribbean for you.
I believe it is. As a part of your liability coverage, to the extent that civil law would hold you liable for creating such a hazard. And after all the risks and financial exposure are calculated, it falls down into the noise level of typical liabilities. Not worth a seperate rider. Unlike a swiming pool, for example.
Yes, it's mandatory that a single male in the USA is REQUIRED to carry insurance that will pay for contraceptives.
Lets see how this works out. I'll go to the corner drug store, pick up a case of condoms and plop down my insurance card.
To have guns insured just like cars are,
Shhhh. Don't tell the gun grabbers. They already are.
My liability coverage (a part of many homeowners policies and also available as blanket liability coverage) already covers this. I asked an insurance agent once if owning guns would be reflected in an increase in liability premiums. He said it was statistically insignificant. What does concern insurance companies is large, expensive gun collections that they have to cover for theft.
But now if you bring this up as a mandate, insurance regulators could easily tack on a 'political premium' to state regulated policies.
Bobcat Goldthwait. Great source there.
It turns out that the reverse might be more accurate. [citation]
Well, as everyone knows, there are no problems, only challenges :))
Auto correct changed that to Challengers. Now I'm screwed!
gee what would they call it when a chunk of WING falls off the plane??
Normal operations?
Its not 'Challenger'. Its STS-51L (not on the prohibited list).
And 'Cobain' excludes a lot of people sharing that same surname. Instead, please refer to the ex-husband of Courtney Love.
That's a touchy subject in the engineering world. The duty to report life safety issues (particularly outside of the organization) often runs up against complying with an employer's policies and procedures. Since there is a manufacturing exception to license requirements in most states, pushing this issue would discourage companies from hiring P.E.s. I don't think you want to live in a world where potentially dangerous products are designed by people with an upper boundary on their knowledge and experience.
Oops. To late.
This is a good point. Although I think publishing an (internal) list is a pretty simplistic way of dealing with this.
When I worked in the engineering department at Boeing, we were expected to write all of our memos clearly and concisely, using proper technical terminology, avoiding hyperbole and lots of adjectives. And to confine our writing to our area of expertise. For example, we could write that such-and-such an event could lead to the failure of some critical function or component. We would not write that the result would be an airplane crash. Because even if the tail falls off the airplane, ... I mean the empennage departs the airframe, a skilled pilot may still be able to land sucessfully.
But since you don't believe in global warming, I guess my carbon footprint doesn't matter, does it?
Nope. And neither do you if we catch you outside city limits, living in the mountains. You'll just be one of those "I've got mine, now save the rest of the wilderness" people. No credibility.