A quasi-standard - one that is only managed by ECMA and was rejected by ISO telling them to give it a name not containing the term "C++". So, in the end it is really just a Microsoft "Standard".
Re:still trying to install it on VMware
on
Windows 8 Roundup
·
· Score: 1
I do understand the reasoning though. The average 9 year old can use a smart phone, but probably not a computer. By unifying the interface between the phone and the computer, they're trying to create a smooth transition between phones and computers, which to them will hopefully spur sales of Windows Smart Phones for children. They'll try to convince parents that the Windows Phone is the better choice for their child because it is a seamless transition to the Desktop.
As a parent, I will not give a smart phone to a child, nor any phone for that matter until they're 16 or so.
As a parent, I will not let them on the computer much either; though I will introduce them to computers via a Linux-based OLPC when the time comes (usage time will be limited though in order to encourage them towards other activities).
They'll get enough computer use in their life time. No need to hasten it.
The article linked from TFA has got quite a few things regarding WinRT wrong. Point by point:
Windows Run Time, WinRT- a C++ object-oriented API.
It's not a C++ API. It's a COM-based API/ABI that can be accessed from any language that knows what a raw function pointer is. It's relatively easier to do that from C++, because COM vtables map nicely to C++ vtables. But WinRT ABI itself is intentionally designed to be projected to different languages, adapting along the way. C++ has its own projection, but so do.NET and JS.
Well that explains the extensive use of C++/CLI (aka Managed C++, C++/CLR) in the WinRT C++ Interface and the reason it requires extensions to C++ to use.
Applications can choose to use either the old Win32 API or the new WinRT but not both.
Wrong. You can use Win32 APIs in Metro apps - some of them are not available (largely because they are pointless in the sandbox, or deal with the old UI concepts), but some are. If you open windows header files - "windows.h" and friends - they now have blocks of code that look like this:
Desktop partition is what's available to non-Metro apps running on the classic desktop. App partition is what's available to Metro apps.
Furthermore, classic apps can actually use WinRT (while retaining full access to Win32 APIs). Not all of WinRT will work - specifically, most of UI stuff won't - but huge chunks of WinRT are not UI-related and are accessible. Examples include I/O and networking libraries, XML parser, XSLT engine, new device and multimedia APIs etc.
To start, you are no longer support to include "windows.h" in your software. You should only be including the relevant headers. They are providing "windows.h" to help with the transition. That started when targeting Vista. It's always been possible to do, but hell to do due to the dependencies which got cleaned up for Vista/Win7 and now even further for Win8.
Compared to some other companies, I'm actually impressed with the length of Cisco's technical track. It's possible to a long technical career within the company with regular pay increases and promotions without switching to the "business" side. In many companies, promotions quickly push technical people into management or technical sales or something. I haven't seen that at Cisco.
Of course, I still expect that the people who are closer to sales and major product decisions (VPs and SVPs) to make more than the senior engineers. Fortunately, I've also seen that Cisco is willing to fire upper management if they make too big or too many bad decisions that hurt margins, product quality, etc. Listening to the message Chambers has been putting out, part of the restructuring seems to be aimed at increased accountability in upper management. It's no use to build awesome products if the company can't sell them or can't sell them at a profit.
Well, they'd be able to trim a lot of technical too if they cleaned up all the integration to make things easier to integrate. I know in the Video-Conferencing stuff that was suppose to happen with Version 6. Don't know if it did; but the database in Version 5 was not easy to decode - took me a few days to work out an ERD for it and there was no help from Cisco on that.
It seems to be taken as a given in this document that Javascript is unusable.... But there is no explanation of why this is the case (except perhaps for google's business needs) - what exactly is the problem with it? Performance is quite good these days thanks in large part to google's chrome folks. Few languages are easier to use, but it is still quite powerful.
While I am not quite as aware of the problems in JS/EcmaScript as Google is, from my own extensive JS coding I can tell you that it is a pain writing JS to work on a multitude of browsers, namely because of how fractured the DOM environment is - especially when you consider supporting Internet Explorer. Getting everyone on a common DOM is itself a big enough challenge - but would very well be worth it. (That is, browser specific DOM should not be relevant to JS writers which should be able to stick to a well known public DOM that is supported by all browsers. Kind of like in Java you have *.java.sun.com is something you don't program to since it may not be there under another JVM.)
Then please remind the "experts" that continue to say it is. Climate Scientists in the press have continuously said it is for over a decade despite the lack of such. There is still a lot we have to learn - things we cannot learn by taking core samples and extrapolating what may have been.
But if a climate change idea is wrong, then corrections to theories are made, and the field moves on, and either the world economy has suffered for no reason or people are experiencing famines that could have been prevented.
If climate change ideas are wrong, then it is not simply a matter of whether the science moves on, it's a matter of getting the regulations modified to recognize it too; which is a lot harder to do than it is for the science to move on. Not only have those ideas produced regulation, but they have produced waste as a result too - waste in implementing those failed ideas, and waste in changing the regulation regarding them.
Don't get me wrong - I fully agree we need to minimize pollutants, etc. (though for stewardship reasons, not necessarily for climate/environments reasons alone). However, I also vehemently disagree that humans are the cause of global warming - something that we really don't understand, yet the "experts" (like Computer Scientists wrt programming) pretend to.
"By many metrics - Windows XP still has 60% percent of the desktop market. This despite Microsoft only selling Win7 license. "
No it doesn't. At least not in the non-Chinese market where most of us live. That number skews the market where still half of them use IE 6 and is heavily pirated with older machines where 90% of copies are illegal.
In the US XP runs in less 1 out of every 4 desktops. Windows 7 is eclipsing XP and Vista with strong corporate sales. Corporate America is the only one buying new XP licenses and almost all of them are either upgrading to Windows 7 or plan to do it in the next 6-12 months if they are not already doing so now.
XP is quickly dying and being replaced regardless of its fans. At the this rate a year from now it will drop below the 10% marketshare line. Then games and other apps wont support XP anymore. XP is very old and thanks to the recession many companies refused to upgrade and instead kept running older systems which are now dying. Economists call this pent up demand. Vista was so bad too and now with Windows 7 corporate users can finally jump ship.
What does this mean? Given time, WIn7 will overtake WinXP but even 2 years after Win7 was released that still hasn't happened - namely due to (i) the downgrade rights to WinXP that comes with certain versions of Win7, and (ii) the massive amount of installs for WinXP.
And these stats are probably pretty accurate even within the US as well where most only upgrade to a newer version of Windows because that's what came on it from BestBuy/etc; even then, with Win7 if you bought one with downgrade rights you are prompted for which - Win7 or WinXP - you want to install/use during first use.
When they rushed out Windows 7 after Vista flopped that was understandable, but now Win8 is coming out just as quickly behind Win7. It's like they're doing the famous trash-good-trash-good pattern on purpose. Rush out the next trash OS to get the next good one out sooner.
Well, you got your pattern wrong.
Windows 3.11 was the first "good" version. Windows 3.11 Win32 followed it, but no one knew they were using it. However, it wasn't a "trash" version either.
Windows 95 followed and was also a "good" version.
Windows 98 was probably the first "trash" version, though they fixed that with Win98SE pretty quickly.
WinME got a bad label as "trash", but it was really a good OS that ran well with good software. It was only when you had non-complaint software (admittedly most of the software on Windows) that things were a problem; and of course, manufacturers failed to provide good drivers for it.
In parallel to that you had the NT line which is mostly good version - Windows NT 3 was a "good" version; so was NT4, and Windows 2000.
Windows XP was also a "good" version.
Windows Vista was a lot like WinME as far as getting a bad label as a "trash" version; though this time it was certainly more Microsoft's fault as they (i) released it right after making major changes to the drivers API thus breaking 90% of the drivers manufacturers had ready for the accompanying hardware, and (ii) the UAC system went overboard.
Windows 7 primarily corrected the UAC issue, which is mostly what gave it the "good" label. It really was just a service pack to Windows Vista.
And of course, then you get to the strategy for software releases that Microsoft seems to be working towards: Release, service pack, new release.
Instead of having a dozen services packs (3 for WinXP, 6 for Windows 2000), they are moving the whole system along and rolling by releasing one service pack, and then doing another release. They're not quite there with Windows yet, but that's their target - as exemplified by Visual Studios, Office, and other products where they already do that, occasionally releasing two service packets now. (Visual Studios has been doing that since VS2003.)
Windows 7 is a nice operating system, and is selling well. If they don't do something stupid like stop selling it when Windows 8 is released, they will do fine.
By what metric?
By many metrics - Windows XP still has 60% percent of the desktop market. This despite Microsoft only selling Win7 license.
If you look at Browser metrics, then the statistics are skewed as people that don't use Windows at all will make the User-Agent report they do so that they can use certain websites that are Windows-only.
If you look at Licenses you have to account for what Microsoft has been doing since selling Windows Vista, and what they are doing with Windows 7. That is, many people want Windows XP, so they have to buy a Windows Vista or 7 license to get XP. And now with Windows 7 many manufacturers are selling the computers with Windows 7 Starter Edition to keep the price down; so then the user must go and buy an "Anytime Upgrade" directly from Microsoft to get a useful version of Windows, which turns what would have been 1 sale into 2 or more (as they try to figure out what version they may want if they didn't get it right the first time).
Most Volume License users are still using Windows XP. They might have moved to Vista by now, but not likely. Of course, they don't get counted in the usual sales metrics either. Even so, it ends up being a double sale as Microsoft advises that Volume License holders should still continue to purchase a regular license with the computers so that they have full rights to use Windows. (The volume license itself may not give them the license they really need! - They again, we end up with a metric that may count a single sale twice.)
And by some accounts (Garnter, IDC I believe) Microsoft is loosing market share - not simply to Apple but to Linux as well. (Not quickly. But its declining.)
Ok, so for two computers directly connected over a gigabit connection trying to transfer a file - yes, it is correct - you cannot max out a gigabit using most computers - the hard drive interface becomes the main limitation, and you'll typically max out around 500 Mbit/second. That's not to say an application that only generates network traffic - that does not need to put it on the hard drive - could not max it out, it very well can since the limitation is the I/O for the hard drive, and not the computer in general (CPU or RAM). This is true even of vintage year 2000 hardware.
However, when talking about multiple computers the systems interleave, and then it can be very easy to max out a gigabit connection even with just two or three computers on the network.
That said, many homes have multiple computers once you start counting: laptops, desktops, iPods, iPhones, Android devices, DVRs, BlueRay, Gaming Systems (e.g. Wii, PlayStation, XBox), and the list goes on.
So yes, Multi-gigabit networks to the home from an ISP are very very relevant and necessary.
Prior art doesn't have to be on the market - it has to be available to the public in some way, whether via the market, or published somewhere, or patented already (not necessarily in the US), etc. Open source software, if it's available online, is published... Or at least available to the public. So, it would be prior art, if it is indeed prior to the supposed invention.
The depends on how they construe whether its "available to the public" in the legal definition. Putting it in a source repository - even if public - may or may not qualify. IANAL so consult one for an accurate answer.
However, if he runs into a stationary object, you're screwed if you are only two seconds behind him.
About the only stationary objects that would not move upon being hit are buildings and bridge abutments - something that you ought to be able to see coming even if you're 2 inches off a semi. Anything else will move the object forward at least a little, and thus you still have more distance than you are talking about.
And I'm sure most vehicles can manage more than 1.5g decelerations. Most safety tests certainly do a lot worse by using actual stationary objects (posts, large concrete blocks, etc.) to verify the safety of the passengers (roll cage, seat belts, etc) - going from 55mph (or better) to a dead stop. They also typically test opposing traffic - both stationary and dynamic - for the same things - which will yield both accelerations and decelerations of greater than 1.5g's as the vehicles swing about in various directions based on the dynamics of the impacts.
And of course the vehicle is fully capable of doing more than your body can withstand; but you're not capable of making it do so.
The problem is, if you put adequate distance between you and the car in front of you for your rate of speed, another driver sees this as an opportunity to squeeze in, which is arguably *more* dangerous. So even drivers who *know* they're following too close in rush hour don't have much choice.
Used to work when I lived in the UK, where the 'two second rule' was bashed into pretty much everyone when they were learning to drive in the 80s and 90s. I see vastly more idiotic behaviour on this side of the Atlantic than I did there, though idiot tailgaters were starting to become common before I left.
They bash a two-to-three second rule into you here in the US. Doesn't do you any good though.
They kinda have too. If Google uses that much power, their Power bill(s) is probably a major expense, finding ways to reduce it by a few percentage, can save a lot of money. Green Energy like wind and solar, needs big power users, who see energy as a major expense and has the resources and will to invest in making cheaper alternatives. Renewable energy sources tend to look good on paper you can get Cheaper Energy in theory after the initial capital expense.
Google is perhaps the only technology company with a license to buy Energy at wholesale prices. Ie their energy costs are very low, and they can buy energy from whomever they want. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Energy. Sadly, it's hard to find anything on it at Google.com, other than http://www.google.com/green/
Define on the market. Does it have to for sale? Retail? Commercial? Would Open Source software qualify as on the market? If so, does it qualify when posted to a public repository? Or when the project makes a release? Or somewhere in between?
In other words, Microsoft and the likes love this because now they may be able to disqualify Open Source as "prior art"; yet they'll still be able to turn around and sue Open Source projects for violations. Of course, whether they can do that or not fully depends on the legal definition of on the market. First-to-File does nothing to resolve the issue, but actually makes it worse.
"I think it would take a lot more than 11 pages to truly show that hoverboards are not feasible at all. You barely scratched the surface."
Please, just a basic understanding of the Newton and Joule is more than enough to realize you'd need a car-sized nuclear reactor on your back to power such a device.
That depends on the design, and obviously we don't have the understanding of physics to do it right now.
There's really two approaches to it: (i) magnetism, and (ii) anti-gravity technology. One we generally understand; the other we have no clue about yet. So it would be very possible to have a hoverboard when you have sufficiently developed anti-gravity technology.
The point? You're barking up the wrong tree to say it's infeasible, especially in 11 pages. The primary issue is our understanding of physics, or rather the lack thereof.
Actually, it's not quite a master's thesis in the sense of most universities. This was simply a "4th year project" that accounts for 30% of our grade for that year, and the rest is mostly exams. Then again, between 10 and 20 pages is not uncommon with purely theoretical final projects.
I think it would take a lot more than 11 pages to truly show that hoverboards are not feasible at all. You barely scratched the surface.
Any fax machine can easily be configured to send a fake header line -- they don't come from the factory knowing who they will eventually be sold to!
Properly configured (I believe including default), faxspool from the mgetty+sendfax distribution does indeed send a timestamp in the header -- again, subject to the computer's RTC & TZ, which can be set to anything you like, just like the fax machine's.
Logs may be an issue (wasn't aware that was a legal requirement), but you certainly _can_ configure that correctly.
And if you have it all configured legally -- you have a legal fax machine that also runs emacs! If not... well, I'm not sure if it's technically illegal to send "bad" faxes or not (maybe it's just illegal to sell fax machines that do it wrong), but you're missing these options to prove you sent it, at your own choice, so you have only yourself to blame.
While IANAL, I would guess that Fraud would come into play if you manipulated the FAX machine to produce incorrect information. Negligence vs. Intent if you didn't configure it right after getting it from the factor, power outage, etc. probably comes into play too.
The quote, from "The art of Unix programming" (thanks to Google Books! - http://goo.gl/3WDeV) does not even imply that. Further, readings on the History of the C language does not imply that either. Rather, from what I can find - and what those same text do infer - they rewrote Unix in C because they wanted a portable source code base, not to prove anything (like Unix could be written in C) - that just happened by chance, but was not a goal be to proven. So, as I said - it showed that C could do what it was intended to do, not that it could be done - they had already rewritten most of Unix in B by that point already too, only to have problems with the limitations of B (see the same source).
Not quite. UNIX was written before C was invented according to your quote.
The original Unix operating system was written in assembler, and the applications in a mix of assembler and an interpreted language called B, which had the virtue that it was small enough to run on the PDP-7. But B was not powerful enough for systems programming, so Dennis Ritchie added data types and structures to it. The resulting C language evolved from B beginning in 1971; in 1973 Thompson and Ritchie finally succeeded in rewriting Unix in their new language. This was quite an audacious move; at the time, system programming was done in assembler in order to extract maximum performance from the hardware, and the very concept of a portable operating system was barely a gleam in anyone's eye. As late as 1979, Ritchie could write: âoeIt seems certain that much of the success of Unix follows from the readability, modifiability, and portability of its software that in turn follows from its expression in high-level languagesâ, in the knowledge that this was a point that still needed making.
So in other words, Unix was invented first. They wanted a better way to maintain it via a single language, so they didn't have to do as much Assembly, so they invented C (deriving it from B), and then rewrote Unix in their new language. This in fact does not show that an OS could be written in C, but rather that C did what it was intended to do - be useful for writing OS's.
Had they decided to show that C could be used to write OS's from the start, then it was have existed prior to Unix. Not the other way around.
They intentionally sabotaged Java on Windows for years while they played catchup
I'd be interested in hearing more about this, if you have any info to hand. I know that they added Windows-specific classes into the java.* package hierarchy (which is why Sun sued them), but that was less sabotaging the language on Windows so much as trying to tie apps to Windows. (So sabotaging not Java, but the "run anywhere" goal.)
Can't quote specifics, but go see the Sun v. Microsoft court documents. True, it was ultimately settled (so there's probably a lot of stuff hidden as a result), but there'll be a good kernel of information there to get you started.
More specifically, Microsoft can wait for any design decision that Mono does differently from them, work out the implications of that design decision; add something big, related to that design decision so that the design decision is committed then add something which is compatible with Microsoft's design decision but opposed to Mono's decision. The fact that Mono succeeds at all in copying much of.Net and in not ceasing to exist, even when it's parent company, Novell, is bought out is a real sigh of the strength of the open source methodology.
And the determinism of certain people paid by Microsoft to continue Microsoft's propaganda in the case of Mono and.NET. (Look at the investors in the company that is now supporting Mono and you'll see what I mean. There is very little in means of contribution to Mono outside of that company.)
Slashdot Mirror
That said, C++/CLI actually is a standard. http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-372.htm
A quasi-standard - one that is only managed by ECMA and was rejected by ISO telling them to give it a name not containing the term "C++". So, in the end it is really just a Microsoft "Standard".
As a parent, I will not give a smart phone to a child, nor any phone for that matter until they're 16 or so.
As a parent, I will not let them on the computer much either; though I will introduce them to computers via a Linux-based OLPC when the time comes (usage time will be limited though in order to encourage them towards other activities).
They'll get enough computer use in their life time. No need to hasten it.
The article linked from TFA has got quite a few things regarding WinRT wrong. Point by point:
Windows Run Time, WinRT- a C++ object-oriented API.
It's not a C++ API. It's a COM-based API/ABI that can be accessed from any language that knows what a raw function pointer is. It's relatively easier to do that from C++, because COM vtables map nicely to C++ vtables. But WinRT ABI itself is intentionally designed to be projected to different languages, adapting along the way. C++ has its own projection, but so do .NET and JS.
Well that explains the extensive use of C++/CLI (aka Managed C++, C++/CLR) in the WinRT C++ Interface and the reason it requires extensions to C++ to use.
Applications can choose to use either the old Win32 API or the new WinRT but not both.
Wrong. You can use Win32 APIs in Metro apps - some of them are not available (largely because they are pointless in the sandbox, or deal with the old UI concepts), but some are. If you open windows header files - "windows.h" and friends - they now have blocks of code that look like this:
Desktop partition is what's available to non-Metro apps running on the classic desktop. App partition is what's available to Metro apps.
Furthermore, classic apps can actually use WinRT (while retaining full access to Win32 APIs). Not all of WinRT will work - specifically, most of UI stuff won't - but huge chunks of WinRT are not UI-related and are accessible. Examples include I/O and networking libraries, XML parser, XSLT engine, new device and multimedia APIs etc.
To start, you are no longer support to include "windows.h" in your software. You should only be including the relevant headers. They are providing "windows.h" to help with the transition. That started when targeting Vista. It's always been possible to do, but hell to do due to the dependencies which got cleaned up for Vista/Win7 and now even further for Win8.
Compared to some other companies, I'm actually impressed with the length of Cisco's technical track. It's possible to a long technical career within the company with regular pay increases and promotions without switching to the "business" side. In many companies, promotions quickly push technical people into management or technical sales or something. I haven't seen that at Cisco.
Of course, I still expect that the people who are closer to sales and major product decisions (VPs and SVPs) to make more than the senior engineers. Fortunately, I've also seen that Cisco is willing to fire upper management if they make too big or too many bad decisions that hurt margins, product quality, etc. Listening to the message Chambers has been putting out, part of the restructuring seems to be aimed at increased accountability in upper management. It's no use to build awesome products if the company can't sell them or can't sell them at a profit.
Well, they'd be able to trim a lot of technical too if they cleaned up all the integration to make things easier to integrate. I know in the Video-Conferencing stuff that was suppose to happen with Version 6. Don't know if it did; but the database in Version 5 was not easy to decode - took me a few days to work out an ERD for it and there was no help from Cisco on that.
It seems to be taken as a given in this document that Javascript is unusable.... But there is no explanation of why this is the case (except perhaps for google's business needs) - what exactly is the problem with it? Performance is quite good these days thanks in large part to google's chrome folks. Few languages are easier to use, but it is still quite powerful.
While I am not quite as aware of the problems in JS/EcmaScript as Google is, from my own extensive JS coding I can tell you that it is a pain writing JS to work on a multitude of browsers, namely because of how fractured the DOM environment is - especially when you consider supporting Internet Explorer. Getting everyone on a common DOM is itself a big enough challenge - but would very well be worth it. (That is, browser specific DOM should not be relevant to JS writers which should be able to stick to a well known public DOM that is supported by all browsers. Kind of like in Java you have *.java.sun.com is something you don't program to since it may not be there under another JVM.)
Then please remind the "experts" that continue to say it is. Climate Scientists in the press have continuously said it is for over a decade despite the lack of such. There is still a lot we have to learn - things we cannot learn by taking core samples and extrapolating what may have been.
If climate change ideas are wrong, then it is not simply a matter of whether the science moves on, it's a matter of getting the regulations modified to recognize it too; which is a lot harder to do than it is for the science to move on. Not only have those ideas produced regulation, but they have produced waste as a result too - waste in implementing those failed ideas, and waste in changing the regulation regarding them.
Don't get me wrong - I fully agree we need to minimize pollutants, etc. (though for stewardship reasons, not necessarily for climate/environments reasons alone). However, I also vehemently disagree that humans are the cause of global warming - something that we really don't understand, yet the "experts" (like Computer Scientists wrt programming) pretend to.
"By many metrics - Windows XP still has 60% percent of the desktop market. This despite Microsoft only selling Win7 license. "
No it doesn't. At least not in the non-Chinese market where most of us live. That number skews the market where still half of them use IE 6 and is heavily pirated with older machines where 90% of copies are illegal.
In the US XP runs in less 1 out of every 4 desktops. Windows 7 is eclipsing XP and Vista with strong corporate sales. Corporate America is the only one buying new XP licenses and almost all of them are either upgrading to Windows 7 or plan to do it in the next 6-12 months if they are not already doing so now.
XP is quickly dying and being replaced regardless of its fans. At the this rate a year from now it will drop below the 10% marketshare line. Then games and other apps wont support XP anymore. XP is very old and thanks to the recession many companies refused to upgrade and instead kept running older systems which are now dying. Economists call this pent up demand. Vista was so bad too and now with Windows 7 corporate users can finally jump ship.
65% WinXP vs. 13% Win7 - admittedly that was June 2010
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Windows-XP-vs-Windows-7-a-Microsoft-Perspective-147906.shtml
Slightly more updated stats:
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp
Puts them head to head with Win7 leading by 2% points.
Still, as noted in my OP (the GP of this post), web stats are skewed due to User Agents modifications in browsers of non-Windows platforms by users.
So then we turn to a number of resources from Wikipedia which still shows Win7 lagging WinXP by 4% in nearly every survey: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems
which seems to be corroborated by http://www.netmarketshare.com/os-market-share.aspx?qprid=11 showing Win7 at almost 30% and WInXP at almost 50%.
What does this mean? Given time, WIn7 will overtake WinXP but even 2 years after Win7 was released that still hasn't happened - namely due to (i) the downgrade rights to WinXP that comes with certain versions of Win7, and (ii) the massive amount of installs for WinXP.
And these stats are probably pretty accurate even within the US as well where most only upgrade to a newer version of Windows because that's what came on it from BestBuy/etc; even then, with Win7 if you bought one with downgrade rights you are prompted for which - Win7 or WinXP - you want to install/use during first use.
When they rushed out Windows 7 after Vista flopped that was understandable, but now Win8 is coming out just as quickly behind Win7. It's like they're doing the famous trash-good-trash-good pattern on purpose. Rush out the next trash OS to get the next good one out sooner.
Well, you got your pattern wrong.
Windows 3.11 was the first "good" version. Windows 3.11 Win32 followed it, but no one knew they were using it. However, it wasn't a "trash" version either.
Windows 95 followed and was also a "good" version.
Windows 98 was probably the first "trash" version, though they fixed that with Win98SE pretty quickly.
WinME got a bad label as "trash", but it was really a good OS that ran well with good software. It was only when you had non-complaint software (admittedly most of the software on Windows) that things were a problem; and of course, manufacturers failed to provide good drivers for it.
In parallel to that you had the NT line which is mostly good version - Windows NT 3 was a "good" version; so was NT4, and Windows 2000.
Windows XP was also a "good" version.
Windows Vista was a lot like WinME as far as getting a bad label as a "trash" version; though this time it was certainly more Microsoft's fault as they (i) released it right after making major changes to the drivers API thus breaking 90% of the drivers manufacturers had ready for the accompanying hardware, and (ii) the UAC system went overboard.
Windows 7 primarily corrected the UAC issue, which is mostly what gave it the "good" label. It really was just a service pack to Windows Vista.
And of course, then you get to the strategy for software releases that Microsoft seems to be working towards: Release, service pack, new release.
Instead of having a dozen services packs (3 for WinXP, 6 for Windows 2000), they are moving the whole system along and rolling by releasing one service pack, and then doing another release. They're not quite there with Windows yet, but that's their target - as exemplified by Visual Studios, Office, and other products where they already do that, occasionally releasing two service packets now. (Visual Studios has been doing that since VS2003.)
Windows 7 is a nice operating system, and is selling well. If they don't do something stupid like stop selling it when Windows 8 is released, they will do fine.
By what metric?
By many metrics - Windows XP still has 60% percent of the desktop market. This despite Microsoft only selling Win7 license.
If you look at Browser metrics, then the statistics are skewed as people that don't use Windows at all will make the User-Agent report they do so that they can use certain websites that are Windows-only.
If you look at Licenses you have to account for what Microsoft has been doing since selling Windows Vista, and what they are doing with Windows 7. That is, many people want Windows XP, so they have to buy a Windows Vista or 7 license to get XP. And now with Windows 7 many manufacturers are selling the computers with Windows 7 Starter Edition to keep the price down; so then the user must go and buy an "Anytime Upgrade" directly from Microsoft to get a useful version of Windows, which turns what would have been 1 sale into 2 or more (as they try to figure out what version they may want if they didn't get it right the first time).
Most Volume License users are still using Windows XP. They might have moved to Vista by now, but not likely. Of course, they don't get counted in the usual sales metrics either. Even so, it ends up being a double sale as Microsoft advises that Volume License holders should still continue to purchase a regular license with the computers so that they have full rights to use Windows. (The volume license itself may not give them the license they really need! - They again, we end up with a metric that may count a single sale twice.)
And by some accounts (Garnter, IDC I believe) Microsoft is loosing market share - not simply to Apple but to Linux as well. (Not quickly. But its declining.)
So please, by what metric is Win7 selling well?
Ok, so for two computers directly connected over a gigabit connection trying to transfer a file - yes, it is correct - you cannot max out a gigabit using most computers - the hard drive interface becomes the main limitation, and you'll typically max out around 500 Mbit/second. That's not to say an application that only generates network traffic - that does not need to put it on the hard drive - could not max it out, it very well can since the limitation is the I/O for the hard drive, and not the computer in general (CPU or RAM). This is true even of vintage year 2000 hardware.
However, when talking about multiple computers the systems interleave, and then it can be very easy to max out a gigabit connection even with just two or three computers on the network.
That said, many homes have multiple computers once you start counting: laptops, desktops, iPods, iPhones, Android devices, DVRs, BlueRay, Gaming Systems (e.g. Wii, PlayStation, XBox), and the list goes on.
So yes, Multi-gigabit networks to the home from an ISP are very very relevant and necessary.
Prior art doesn't have to be on the market - it has to be available to the public in some way, whether via the market, or published somewhere, or patented already (not necessarily in the US), etc. Open source software, if it's available online, is published... Or at least available to the public. So, it would be prior art, if it is indeed prior to the supposed invention.
The depends on how they construe whether its "available to the public" in the legal definition. Putting it in a source repository - even if public - may or may not qualify. IANAL so consult one for an accurate answer.
About the only stationary objects that would not move upon being hit are buildings and bridge abutments - something that you ought to be able to see coming even if you're 2 inches off a semi. Anything else will move the object forward at least a little, and thus you still have more distance than you are talking about.
And I'm sure most vehicles can manage more than 1.5g decelerations. Most safety tests certainly do a lot worse by using actual stationary objects (posts, large concrete blocks, etc.) to verify the safety of the passengers (roll cage, seat belts, etc) - going from 55mph (or better) to a dead stop. They also typically test opposing traffic - both stationary and dynamic - for the same things - which will yield both accelerations and decelerations of greater than 1.5g's as the vehicles swing about in various directions based on the dynamics of the impacts.
And of course the vehicle is fully capable of doing more than your body can withstand; but you're not capable of making it do so.
The problem is, if you put adequate distance between you and the car in front of you for your rate of speed, another driver sees this as an opportunity to squeeze in, which is arguably *more* dangerous. So even drivers who *know* they're following too close in rush hour don't have much choice.
Used to work when I lived in the UK, where the 'two second rule' was bashed into pretty much everyone when they were learning to drive in the 80s and 90s. I see vastly more idiotic behaviour on this side of the Atlantic than I did there, though idiot tailgaters were starting to become common before I left.
They bash a two-to-three second rule into you here in the US. Doesn't do you any good though.
They kinda have too. If Google uses that much power, their Power bill(s) is probably a major expense, finding ways to reduce it by a few percentage, can save a lot of money. Green Energy like wind and solar, needs big power users, who see energy as a major expense and has the resources and will to invest in making cheaper alternatives. Renewable energy sources tend to look good on paper you can get Cheaper Energy in theory after the initial capital expense.
Google is perhaps the only technology company with a license to buy Energy at wholesale prices. Ie their energy costs are very low, and they can buy energy from whomever they want. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Energy. Sadly, it's hard to find anything on it at Google.com, other than http://www.google.com/green/
The first inventor would have prior art if he's actually doing something with that invention. If not, who cares?
Depends on whether it qualifies as prior art. If not published in some form, and sold it may not qualify. (IANAL)
Define on the market. Does it have to for sale? Retail? Commercial? Would Open Source software qualify as on the market? If so, does it qualify when posted to a public repository? Or when the project makes a release? Or somewhere in between?
In other words, Microsoft and the likes love this because now they may be able to disqualify Open Source as "prior art"; yet they'll still be able to turn around and sue Open Source projects for violations. Of course, whether they can do that or not fully depends on the legal definition of on the market. First-to-File does nothing to resolve the issue, but actually makes it worse.
"I think it would take a lot more than 11 pages to truly show that hoverboards are not feasible at all. You barely scratched the surface."
Please, just a basic understanding of the Newton and Joule is more than enough to realize you'd need a car-sized nuclear reactor on your back to power such a device.
That depends on the design, and obviously we don't have the understanding of physics to do it right now.
There's really two approaches to it: (i) magnetism, and (ii) anti-gravity technology. One we generally understand; the other we have no clue about yet. So it would be very possible to have a hoverboard when you have sufficiently developed anti-gravity technology.
The point? You're barking up the wrong tree to say it's infeasible, especially in 11 pages. The primary issue is our understanding of physics, or rather the lack thereof.
Actually, it's not quite a master's thesis in the sense of most universities. This was simply a "4th year project" that accounts for 30% of our grade for that year, and the rest is mostly exams. Then again, between 10 and 20 pages is not uncommon with purely theoretical final projects.
I think it would take a lot more than 11 pages to truly show that hoverboards are not feasible at all. You barely scratched the surface.
Any fax machine can easily be configured to send a fake header line -- they don't come from the factory knowing who they will eventually be sold to! Properly configured (I believe including default), faxspool from the mgetty+sendfax distribution does indeed send a timestamp in the header -- again, subject to the computer's RTC & TZ, which can be set to anything you like, just like the fax machine's. Logs may be an issue (wasn't aware that was a legal requirement), but you certainly _can_ configure that correctly.
And if you have it all configured legally -- you have a legal fax machine that also runs emacs! If not... well, I'm not sure if it's technically illegal to send "bad" faxes or not (maybe it's just illegal to sell fax machines that do it wrong), but you're missing these options to prove you sent it, at your own choice, so you have only yourself to blame.
While IANAL, I would guess that Fraud would come into play if you manipulated the FAX machine to produce incorrect information. Negligence vs. Intent if you didn't configure it right after getting it from the factor, power outage, etc. probably comes into play too.
Judges think that. Not because they want to, but because it has been accepted by the courts.
Not in the US. Validity of electronic contracts was explicitly established in the law a long time ago.
Faxes are court admissible in the US too; long before electronic contracts were.
The quote, from "The art of Unix programming" (thanks to Google Books! - http://goo.gl/3WDeV) does not even imply that. Further, readings on the History of the C language does not imply that either. Rather, from what I can find - and what those same text do infer - they rewrote Unix in C because they wanted a portable source code base, not to prove anything (like Unix could be written in C) - that just happened by chance, but was not a goal be to proven. So, as I said - it showed that C could do what it was intended to do, not that it could be done - they had already rewritten most of Unix in B by that point already too, only to have problems with the limitations of B (see the same source).
So in other words, Unix was invented first. They wanted a better way to maintain it via a single language, so they didn't have to do as much Assembly, so they invented C (deriving it from B), and then rewrote Unix in their new language. This in fact does not show that an OS could be written in C, but rather that C did what it was intended to do - be useful for writing OS's.
Had they decided to show that C could be used to write OS's from the start, then it was have existed prior to Unix. Not the other way around.
They intentionally sabotaged Java on Windows for years while they played catchup
I'd be interested in hearing more about this, if you have any info to hand. I know that they added Windows-specific classes into the java.* package hierarchy (which is why Sun sued them), but that was less sabotaging the language on Windows so much as trying to tie apps to Windows. (So sabotaging not Java, but the "run anywhere" goal.)
Can't quote specifics, but go see the Sun v. Microsoft court documents. True, it was ultimately settled (so there's probably a lot of stuff hidden as a result), but there'll be a good kernel of information there to get you started.
More specifically, Microsoft can wait for any design decision that Mono does differently from them, work out the implications of that design decision; add something big, related to that design decision so that the design decision is committed then add something which is compatible with Microsoft's design decision but opposed to Mono's decision. The fact that Mono succeeds at all in copying much of .Net and in not ceasing to exist, even when it's parent company, Novell, is bought out is a real sigh of the strength of the open source methodology.
And the determinism of certain people paid by Microsoft to continue Microsoft's propaganda in the case of Mono and .NET. (Look at the investors in the company that is now supporting Mono and you'll see what I mean. There is very little in means of contribution to Mono outside of that company.)