You are partially correct in that you can't run real mode code in 64-bit mode, either directly or in a V8086. But real mode and 16-bit are not, in fact synonyms; the all-16-bit 286 had a protected mode, code for which which later processors were perfectly capable of executing in 32-bit protected mode.
That includes in the 32-bit mode on the x64 architecture. You can simultaneously run 64-bit and 16-bit code just fine, if the 16-bit code is protected mode code and the OS doesn't do anything stupid. And any Windows program that can run on Windows 3.1 is able to run in 16-bit protected mode.
The fact that you can't run a Windows 3.1 program on x64 Windows is a very specifically Microsoft fuckup, having to do with how the Windows-on-Windows software was done for Itanium, and then how the x64 version of Windows was ported from Itanium.
But you don't need a virtual machine if you want to run 16-bit Windows 3.1 programs under a 64-bit OS; Linux with WINE will run them.
Seriously. If you don't have physical operations in the EU, you will not have to worry about the continent's rulers' permanent inability to respect the concept of free speech.
Um, no. The Joint Development Agreement didn't have anything to do with antitrust. (You're confusing that with why IBM didn't lock Microsoft into exclusivity in the DOS contract five years earlier, which in part was motivated because of the antitrust settlements on IBM mainframes that required IBM to make its mainframe OSes available.)
Microsoft's original plan for its successor to the limited DOS was a migration path to Xenix, but, when the 1984 AT&T antitrust resolution came down, AT&T got permission to sell Unix as a product. Microsoft decided it would be folly to try to compete with AT&T selling AT&T's OS, and switched over migration plans to a product called "ADOS" or "DOS 4" or various other names in the press. ADOS would then slip under Windows, also in development, which would be the GUI.
At the same time, IBM had been trying to develop its own improved extensions and GUI to DOS to exploit 286 hardware -- Top View.
After a fairly short period of the press speculating about the coming war between Microsoft and IBM over the future of the PC, and the initial failure of Top View to get as many sales as expected, IBM and Microsoft signed a joint development agreement for what the press would, during development, still call ADOS/DOS 4, and which was internally codenamed CP/DOS. The PC would have a single, obvious software future.
And when this OS was released as OS/2 in 1987, it worked just fine on non-PS/2s, which was only to be expected, because A) IBM was already committed to customers that it would work on ATs, which is why they wouldn't let Microsoft make it a 386-only OS; and B) Microsoft actually finished development of it (and released initial outside developer machines with it) on Compaq 386s.
And it was, in fact, that 286 compatibility that hampered it the most, because the 286 had no v8086 mode to hide DOS programs in. Thus the tendency to call the DOS box the "penalty box" By the time OS/2 1.1 shipped with the GUI in October 1988, Windows/386 had already shipped and, because it used virtual 8086 mode to multitask DOS, had better support for DOS apps than OS/2. Added to the ability to drop out of Windows just to pure native DOS if necessary, the installed base of DOS apps then won the day for 16-bit Windows.
NT didn't even release until July 1993, long after 16-bit Windows dominated desktops. And NT wasn't enough to stop OS/2 Warp from making a play, it was 32-bit-extended-16-bit-Windows 95 that shut OS/2's last charge down.
Aquifers under deserts tend to have rather saline groundwater, to the point the issue is often reducing the salt content enough to be potable. A supply of distilled water would be quite easy to handle; you just blend it with the water you're already drawing from wells.
It can be done pretty easily -- let people kill any wolves that come into populated areas, like they used to be allowed to do. The wolves that survive will be those that fear people and stick to the wilds.
And it's not like it would actually endanger the wolves -- the IUCN listing for them is Least Concern. The "Endangered Species Act" listing of them as "endangered" merely indicated they were rare in the lower 48 states; Canada, Alaska, Russia, and China have plenty.
If your plan for employing people is to waste their labor in inefficiency, it's trivial to invent make-work for them. So go create a Hole-Digging Administration and a Department of Hole-Filling and set both sets of workers loose with spoons.
An approximation of this was done by many publishers with textbooks. The result was importation of the cheaper overseas editions of textbooks into the US. And the US Supreme Court ruled that the First Sale Doctrine covers imported copyrighted works.
There was at one point a section in the Red Book for genuinely quadraphonic audio CDs, but there was no uptake on the format, and it was dropped from the IEC versions of the standard.
First, it's explicit in the Constitution that "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member." Whatever rules a House likes for its proceedings are the rules, and whatever punishment it designates for violating them is the punishment. The case law on that goes on to state that this means that the courts may not hear a case on such matters; no Federal court has the authority to even hear a case on the rules, much less get to the point that it can rule whether something is free speech or not.
Second, the Speech or Debate Clause only protects members form being held responsible "in any other Place"; their own House is perfectly allowed to hold them responsible for what they say. In accordance with the previous bit.
Third, this isn't a law, it's a proposed rule of the House, in the decidedly non-public forum of the floor of the House. The First Amendment doesn't remotely apply, at all, either literally or in any of its court-extended meanings. Even if the courts were allowed to rule on the rule (see the first problem), current precedent would fall on the side of the rulemakers.
Well, I bought "this crap" (that is, a Netgear router) because it was a dual-band AC router, supported by my favored third-party firmware, on sale for under $60.
I didn't give a crap about any deficiencies in the native firmware because I was using my own.
Read the summary again. It wasn't a "dummy" bomb, it was a real Mark IV nuclear bomb.
What it didn't have was the fissile core loaded. Which is exactly what would be expected; the Mark IV was designed to have the core loaded into the bomb by the aircrew during the flight.
So, it certainly wasn't a dummy bomb; it was a real Mark IV, with the normal uranium and TNT in the casing. But it almost certainly wasn't a live nuclear bomb, because there would have been no reason at all for the plutonium core to have been loaded on the plane, and even if the plutonium was on the plane, no reason at all for the aircrew to load the plutonium into the bomb.
Mmm. There was an underlying social movement involving the engagement ring. As US courts became more reluctant to award damages in breech-of-promise suits, valuable rings as a mark of engagement became more common. If the man broke the engagement, the woman kept it, thus collecting the value of the ring without having to go to court. If she broke it off, she was expected to return it; courts, in fact, would enforce the demand for the return.
The standardization on diamond rings was very much DeBeers marketing; initially, rubies were actually more popular. But the underlying phenomena didn't have particularly much to do with the traditional wedding ring at all.
Cygwin is GNU for Windows. It compiles and puts the GNU system on Windows.
"Windows Subsystem for Linux" is not GNU for Windows. It is subsystem for executing compiled-for-Linux ELF binaries on Windows. It's a Linux subsytem/ABI on Windows much like Wine is a Windows subsystem/ABI on Linux. You can run GNU software compiled for Linux on it, because it implements the Linux system calls on Windows, but it is not a port of GNU software to the Windows kernel.
Actually, no, the source I'm using for that nuclear death estimate number explicitly includes deaths from accidents in making material for nuclear weapons, waste handling, uranium mining (both accidents and radiation exposure), no-linear-threshold analysis of radiation exposure, the maximal estimates of Chernobyl and Fukushima deaths (including the deaths from evacuation-related stress in Fukushima), and so on.
It's the sources that don't do that that come up with stupid things like "Zero civilian nuclear deaths in the US", which I agree are nonsense.
I mean, yes, it's possible that there are a bunch of incidents in Russia and China that have been kept quiet, but they would have to cumulatively be on the same order of magnitude as Chernobyl in order to move the needle enough to bring the nuclear death rate up to wind (which is mostly falls by maintenance workers, divided by the rather low amount of wind power generated) . Getting the numbers up to global hydro (which is dominated by a few really big dam failures, mostly in places like China) requires some truly ludicrous numbers of unknown nuclear deaths.
Yeah, see, I'm not ESR, the guy who's been editing the Jargon File since the late 1980s, and who added entries like "Fisking". I'm just an archivist, of every version I've been able to lay my hands on. The only agenda involved in the Jargon File Text Archive is making as much of the File's history as available as possible to everyone; I've got versions, from before and after ESR started editing, that were previously not collected anywhere else.
Er, no. The Hz race has not been stalled for a decade because every player in the industry suddenly changed their priorities all at once.
IBM, which you cite for its lab work, would be perfectly happy to be able to deploy substantially faster POWER chips to increase its market share at the expense of x86. But POWER's stagnated on frequency since 2006, too. Similarly, the "rest of the industry" that you say wants to replace x86 with ARM would quite gladly ship 10 GHz ARM parts if they could figure out how; after all, that would greatly help in stealing market share from x86.
No, we're stuck where we are because nobody can yet figure out how to actually move any technique for increasing speed from the lab to an actual mass-manufactured part, even though every single player in the desktop and server spaces has a massive incentive to be the first to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
Incorrect.
You are partially correct in that you can't run real mode code in 64-bit mode, either directly or in a V8086. But real mode and 16-bit are not, in fact synonyms; the all-16-bit 286 had a protected mode, code for which which later processors were perfectly capable of executing in 32-bit protected mode.
That includes in the 32-bit mode on the x64 architecture. You can simultaneously run 64-bit and 16-bit code just fine, if the 16-bit code is protected mode code and the OS doesn't do anything stupid. And any Windows program that can run on Windows 3.1 is able to run in 16-bit protected mode.
The fact that you can't run a Windows 3.1 program on x64 Windows is a very specifically Microsoft fuckup, having to do with how the Windows-on-Windows software was done for Itanium, and then how the x64 version of Windows was ported from Itanium.
But you don't need a virtual machine if you want to run 16-bit Windows 3.1 programs under a 64-bit OS; Linux with WINE will run them.
Seriously. If you don't have physical operations in the EU, you will not have to worry about the continent's rulers' permanent inability to respect the concept of free speech.
I was assured that Brexit would mean large companies pulling out of Britain, not building big new facilities there.
Um, no. The Joint Development Agreement didn't have anything to do with antitrust. (You're confusing that with why IBM didn't lock Microsoft into exclusivity in the DOS contract five years earlier, which in part was motivated because of the antitrust settlements on IBM mainframes that required IBM to make its mainframe OSes available.)
Microsoft's original plan for its successor to the limited DOS was a migration path to Xenix, but, when the 1984 AT&T antitrust resolution came down, AT&T got permission to sell Unix as a product. Microsoft decided it would be folly to try to compete with AT&T selling AT&T's OS, and switched over migration plans to a product called "ADOS" or "DOS 4" or various other names in the press. ADOS would then slip under Windows, also in development, which would be the GUI.
At the same time, IBM had been trying to develop its own improved extensions and GUI to DOS to exploit 286 hardware -- Top View.
After a fairly short period of the press speculating about the coming war between Microsoft and IBM over the future of the PC, and the initial failure of Top View to get as many sales as expected, IBM and Microsoft signed a joint development agreement for what the press would, during development, still call ADOS/DOS 4, and which was internally codenamed CP/DOS. The PC would have a single, obvious software future.
And when this OS was released as OS/2 in 1987, it worked just fine on non-PS/2s, which was only to be expected, because A) IBM was already committed to customers that it would work on ATs, which is why they wouldn't let Microsoft make it a 386-only OS; and B) Microsoft actually finished development of it (and released initial outside developer machines with it) on Compaq 386s.
And it was, in fact, that 286 compatibility that hampered it the most, because the 286 had no v8086 mode to hide DOS programs in. Thus the tendency to call the DOS box the "penalty box" By the time OS/2 1.1 shipped with the GUI in October 1988, Windows/386 had already shipped and, because it used virtual 8086 mode to multitask DOS, had better support for DOS apps than OS/2. Added to the ability to drop out of Windows just to pure native DOS if necessary, the installed base of DOS apps then won the day for 16-bit Windows.
NT didn't even release until July 1993, long after 16-bit Windows dominated desktops. And NT wasn't enough to stop OS/2 Warp from making a play, it was 32-bit-extended-16-bit-Windows 95 that shut OS/2's last charge down.
Well, you see, they could, if Japanese agricultural protectionism didn't get in the way. But it does and so they can't.
Aquifers under deserts tend to have rather saline groundwater, to the point the issue is often reducing the salt content enough to be potable. A supply of distilled water would be quite easy to handle; you just blend it with the water you're already drawing from wells.
It can be done pretty easily -- let people kill any wolves that come into populated areas, like they used to be allowed to do. The wolves that survive will be those that fear people and stick to the wilds.
And it's not like it would actually endanger the wolves -- the IUCN listing for them is Least Concern. The "Endangered Species Act" listing of them as "endangered" merely indicated they were rare in the lower 48 states; Canada, Alaska, Russia, and China have plenty.
But only if you're watching HD-DVDs in active-shutter 3D.
Pale Moon is a long-established fork of Firefox that, among other things, is maintaining NPAPI support.
If your plan for employing people is to waste their labor in inefficiency, it's trivial to invent make-work for them. So go create a Hole-Digging Administration and a Department of Hole-Filling and set both sets of workers loose with spoons.
An approximation of this was done by many publishers with textbooks. The result was importation of the cheaper overseas editions of textbooks into the US. And the US Supreme Court ruled that the First Sale Doctrine covers imported copyrighted works.
There was at one point a section in the Red Book for genuinely quadraphonic audio CDs, but there was no uptake on the format, and it was dropped from the IEC versions of the standard.
Seriously.
First, it's explicit in the Constitution that "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member." Whatever rules a House likes for its proceedings are the rules, and whatever punishment it designates for violating them is the punishment. The case law on that goes on to state that this means that the courts may not hear a case on such matters; no Federal court has the authority to even hear a case on the rules, much less get to the point that it can rule whether something is free speech or not.
Second, the Speech or Debate Clause only protects members form being held responsible "in any other Place"; their own House is perfectly allowed to hold them responsible for what they say. In accordance with the previous bit.
Third, this isn't a law, it's a proposed rule of the House, in the decidedly non-public forum of the floor of the House. The First Amendment doesn't remotely apply, at all, either literally or in any of its court-extended meanings. Even if the courts were allowed to rule on the rule (see the first problem), current precedent would fall on the side of the rulemakers.
Well, I bought "this crap" (that is, a Netgear router) because it was a dual-band AC router, supported by my favored third-party firmware, on sale for under $60.
I didn't give a crap about any deficiencies in the native firmware because I was using my own.
Over/under on the expropriation of the hardware by the Cuban government?
Yep. The R6400 and R7000 are both supported by both DD-WRT, and Tomato by Shibby. I think OpenWRT only supports the R7000
It's the size of a Poland. Bigger than an Italy, smaller than a Germany.
Read the summary again. It wasn't a "dummy" bomb, it was a real Mark IV nuclear bomb.
What it didn't have was the fissile core loaded. Which is exactly what would be expected; the Mark IV was designed to have the core loaded into the bomb by the aircrew during the flight.
So, it certainly wasn't a dummy bomb; it was a real Mark IV, with the normal uranium and TNT in the casing. But it almost certainly wasn't a live nuclear bomb, because there would have been no reason at all for the plutonium core to have been loaded on the plane, and even if the plutonium was on the plane, no reason at all for the aircrew to load the plutonium into the bomb.
Real bomb and no plutonium core.
Mmm. There was an underlying social movement involving the engagement ring. As US courts became more reluctant to award damages in breech-of-promise suits, valuable rings as a mark of engagement became more common. If the man broke the engagement, the woman kept it, thus collecting the value of the ring without having to go to court. If she broke it off, she was expected to return it; courts, in fact, would enforce the demand for the return.
The standardization on diamond rings was very much DeBeers marketing; initially, rubies were actually more popular. But the underlying phenomena didn't have particularly much to do with the traditional wedding ring at all.
Er, I don't know how "at a current of" slipped in there. Volts are voltage, not current.
The summary is misleading; a look at the paper reveals the 63% is the Faradic efficiency, at a current of -1.2 volts.
No, sorry, you misunderstand.
Cygwin is GNU for Windows. It compiles and puts the GNU system on Windows.
"Windows Subsystem for Linux" is not GNU for Windows. It is subsystem for executing compiled-for-Linux ELF binaries on Windows. It's a Linux subsytem/ABI on Windows much like Wine is a Windows subsystem/ABI on Linux. You can run GNU software compiled for Linux on it, because it implements the Linux system calls on Windows, but it is not a port of GNU software to the Windows kernel.
Actually, no, the source I'm using for that nuclear death estimate number explicitly includes deaths from accidents in making material for nuclear weapons, waste handling, uranium mining (both accidents and radiation exposure), no-linear-threshold analysis of radiation exposure, the maximal estimates of Chernobyl and Fukushima deaths (including the deaths from evacuation-related stress in Fukushima), and so on.
It's the sources that don't do that that come up with stupid things like "Zero civilian nuclear deaths in the US", which I agree are nonsense.
I mean, yes, it's possible that there are a bunch of incidents in Russia and China that have been kept quiet, but they would have to cumulatively be on the same order of magnitude as Chernobyl in order to move the needle enough to bring the nuclear death rate up to wind (which is mostly falls by maintenance workers, divided by the rather low amount of wind power generated) . Getting the numbers up to global hydro (which is dominated by a few really big dam failures, mostly in places like China) requires some truly ludicrous numbers of unknown nuclear deaths.
Yeah, see, I'm not ESR, the guy who's been editing the Jargon File since the late 1980s, and who added entries like "Fisking". I'm just an archivist, of every version I've been able to lay my hands on. The only agenda involved in the Jargon File Text Archive is making as much of the File's history as available as possible to everyone; I've got versions, from before and after ESR started editing, that were previously not collected anywhere else.
Er, no. The Hz race has not been stalled for a decade because every player in the industry suddenly changed their priorities all at once.
IBM, which you cite for its lab work, would be perfectly happy to be able to deploy substantially faster POWER chips to increase its market share at the expense of x86. But POWER's stagnated on frequency since 2006, too. Similarly, the "rest of the industry" that you say wants to replace x86 with ARM would quite gladly ship 10 GHz ARM parts if they could figure out how; after all, that would greatly help in stealing market share from x86.
No, we're stuck where we are because nobody can yet figure out how to actually move any technique for increasing speed from the lab to an actual mass-manufactured part, even though every single player in the desktop and server spaces has a massive incentive to be the first to do so.