The horses had their own armour. While heavy steel armour for horses was usually used only for ceremonial/tournament purposes, horses were protected somewhat with other means (not that it would protect them from the arrow of a longbow or the bolt from a crossbow)
"Starship troopers" indeed. Loved the book, didn't liked the movie too much. Starship troopers 2 was a real low...
Anyway, I've seen Starcraft before reading the book, so in my order, prior art is Starcraft
Or a virtual machine, running inside VMWare Player.
But the idea is that right now, government is supporting the Microsoft monopoly by interdicting other software.
There should be a better system (maybe some laws) in allowing access to government pages - maybe legislated like the system for people with handicaps.
I want to say that the rifle (an elephant gun or not) was fired straight into the chest plate. The joints might not be so well armored (and in the 40 pounds version, they are not even be protected).
I don't have that kind of support contacts, so I haven't thought of these things.
Thanks for the tip, and I know there are reasons for keeping even the Office platform (things like "applications" written in VBA on top of Office applications springs to mind)
The inventor wore it (including helmet) in a four hour drive - and police officer stopped him and let him go after convincing himself that the inventor could see just fine with the helmet on.
This would be great for soldiers - if able to withstand assault rifle bullets, its weight (18kg) is pretty low for full body armor.
What makes me curious is this: "In the helmet, there's a solar-powered fresh-air system"
How much fresh air could a solar powered air system produce?
I think you would use water cooling before doing this two-sides cooling contraption (not that it isn't capable of working).
As a side note, you could mount processors on both sides of the board, and use a hole in the middle of the PCB for the connection from one to the other (using some lego-like block)
I remember now the way "Information technology" was taught to medical students (it was in 1997, at the time when labs with computers started to appear on large scale in medical universities - and the some of the students were using a computer for the first time).
The program taught was Microsoft Works (whatever half-graphical version was then - 4.0 I think), and the lab notes were describing actions and the way they should be done. Most of the actions were to be done pressing one of the function keys. And the students had to memorize these actions (no mention of the menus, no description of the way you would search them, and so on)
You could stack some low power components for this - while current performance microprocessors won't be made this way (too much power to dissipate), there are plenty of other microelectronics which uses power in the hundreds of milliwatts range. These, you could stack 10 high.
Also, this could reduce the cost even more in the low cost market - instead of needing a PCB with soldered connections, just put all the components on top each other.
"When a owner of smooth running Windows shop with dozens of.NET applications and centralized SharePoint askes me about switching to Linux to 'save a few bucks', I immediately do a quick cost/benefit analysis on whether or not I should just beat his ass and change professions."
There are very little money to be saved on the operating system of the client computer. Would Linux be cheaper? If you buy your Windows retail or OEM, and will move to a free (as in beer) Linux, there are some money to be saved. If your operating system comes preinstalled (at a cheap rate for your OEM), and you want to move to a commercial Linux (supported by $), you are poised to lose money.
The big money are payed in the server room - "server" operating systems (Win2000, 2003), SQL servers, BackOffice maybe, client access licenses and so on and so on. As long as you don't move this infrastructure, any financial benefit in moving to Linux is small (if existent).
"Cost/benefit analysis" should be simple for the transition: use what works now, for some $$$, or move to Linux for free, and have little working. Microsoft tax is very much "the cost of doing business", as long as even some mandatory financial reports (to be transmitted to the Financial Authority) must be done in Windows programs (supplied by the same Financial Authority)
tinfoil hat on...
As Office 2007 might have more differences in basic code, there could be issues/bugs/vulnerabilities present only in old versions of Office. A faster time-to-patch for the new product might convince some companies to switch.
As an employer, you'll want to impose to your employee what software he/she is to use. If he knows only Office 2007, but you use Office XP in your network, he/she might learn it or go.
OO.o runs on Windows - and once the transition to OO.o (and supposedly away from Outlook) is done, an important part of the need to keep the Windows platform is solved.
On the other side, I don't really like to hunt for a submenu/option in all of the 10 or 15 submenus/options inside a menu. The reduction in menu items shown is somewhat good (what I really really hate is the disappearing of taskbar icons)
There are (probably many) corporations that use software rented from Microsoft - for those, there will be little choice when Microsoft decide to force the change.
Anyway, here some "snowball effect" is needed for the file format change to force upgrading the Office version
Microsoft is fighting very hard against its biggest competitor on the Office software market: its older products.
I don't think Office 2007 is a better product, compared to Office 2003, than Office 2003 is compared to XP. As such, Microsoft will slowly force an upgrade using artificial obsolence
All the article says is "the ribbon interface is less intuitive than the menu driven one, and it takes time to learn".
Meanwhile, Office 2007 would probably be mandatory for new functionality in new products from Microsoft - just as Office 2003 is mandatory for some functionality (edit in dataview) for Sharepoint Server 2003
Slashdot Mirror
A 3" canonball would relocate just a part of the wearer to a different spot
Maybe they use inflatable hammers
The horses had their own armour. While heavy steel armour for horses was usually used only for ceremonial/tournament purposes, horses were protected somewhat with other means (not that it would protect them from the arrow of a longbow or the bolt from a crossbow)
Plenty for the entire planet, and some extra (storms, hurricanes, cyclones)
"Starship troopers" indeed. Loved the book, didn't liked the movie too much. Starship troopers 2 was a real low...
Anyway, I've seen Starcraft before reading the book, so in my order, prior art is Starcraft
If so, this could help quite a bit with cooling (and with breathing if there is a filter on the helmet)
This is real funny - but on a side note, I wonder how much usability in this age you could have from such an ancient platform
But there is a limited total number of connections (so they suggest people try to connect to it off peak hours)
Or a virtual machine, running inside VMWare Player.
But the idea is that right now, government is supporting the Microsoft monopoly by interdicting other software.
There should be a better system (maybe some laws) in allowing access to government pages - maybe legislated like the system for people with handicaps.
I want to say that the rifle (an elephant gun or not) was fired straight into the chest plate. The joints might not be so well armored (and in the 40 pounds version, they are not even be protected).
I don't have that kind of support contacts, so I haven't thought of these things.
Thanks for the tip, and I know there are reasons for keeping even the Office platform (things like "applications" written in VBA on top of Office applications springs to mind)
I've seen the video on google, and I want to say:
Starcraft's marines are prior art
The inventor wore it (including helmet) in a four hour drive - and police officer stopped him and let him go after convincing himself that the inventor could see just fine with the helmet on.
This would be great for soldiers - if able to withstand assault rifle bullets, its weight (18kg) is pretty low for full body armor.
What makes me curious is this:
"In the helmet, there's a solar-powered fresh-air system"
How much fresh air could a solar powered air system produce?
I think you would use water cooling before doing this two-sides cooling contraption (not that it isn't capable of working).
As a side note, you could mount processors on both sides of the board, and use a hole in the middle of the PCB for the connection from one to the other (using some lego-like block)
I remember now the way "Information technology" was taught to medical students (it was in 1997, at the time when labs with computers started to appear on large scale in medical universities - and the some of the students were using a computer for the first time).
The program taught was Microsoft Works (whatever half-graphical version was then - 4.0 I think), and the lab notes were describing actions and the way they should be done. Most of the actions were to be done pressing one of the function keys. And the students had to memorize these actions (no mention of the menus, no description of the way you would search them, and so on)
I have disabled "hide tray icons" on my computer, but I hate to see it on other computers, whatever little time I spend on them.
You could stack some low power components for this - while current performance microprocessors won't be made this way (too much power to dissipate), there are plenty of other microelectronics which uses power in the hundreds of milliwatts range. These, you could stack 10 high.
Also, this could reduce the cost even more in the low cost market - instead of needing a PCB with soldered connections, just put all the components on top each other.
"When a owner of smooth running Windows shop with dozens of .NET applications and centralized SharePoint askes me about switching to Linux to 'save a few bucks', I immediately do a quick cost/benefit analysis on whether or not I should just beat his ass and change professions."
There are very little money to be saved on the operating system of the client computer. Would Linux be cheaper? If you buy your Windows retail or OEM, and will move to a free (as in beer) Linux, there are some money to be saved. If your operating system comes preinstalled (at a cheap rate for your OEM), and you want to move to a commercial Linux (supported by $), you are poised to lose money.
The big money are payed in the server room - "server" operating systems (Win2000, 2003), SQL servers, BackOffice maybe, client access licenses and so on and so on. As long as you don't move this infrastructure, any financial benefit in moving to Linux is small (if existent).
"Cost/benefit analysis" should be simple for the transition: use what works now, for some $$$, or move to Linux for free, and have little working. Microsoft tax is very much "the cost of doing business", as long as even some mandatory financial reports (to be transmitted to the Financial Authority) must be done in Windows programs (supplied by the same Financial Authority)
tinfoil hat on...
As Office 2007 might have more differences in basic code, there could be issues/bugs/vulnerabilities present only in old versions of Office. A faster time-to-patch for the new product might convince some companies to switch.
As an employer, you'll want to impose to your employee what software he/she is to use. If he knows only Office 2007, but you use Office XP in your network, he/she might learn it or go.
OO.o runs on Windows - and once the transition to OO.o (and supposedly away from Outlook) is done, an important part of the need to keep the Windows platform is solved.
On the other side, I don't really like to hunt for a submenu/option in all of the 10 or 15 submenus/options inside a menu. The reduction in menu items shown is somewhat good (what I really really hate is the disappearing of taskbar icons)
There are (probably many) corporations that use software rented from Microsoft - for those, there will be little choice when Microsoft decide to force the change.
Anyway, here some "snowball effect" is needed for the file format change to force upgrading the Office version
Microsoft is fighting very hard against its biggest competitor on the Office software market: its older products.
I don't think Office 2007 is a better product, compared to Office 2003, than Office 2003 is compared to XP. As such, Microsoft will slowly force an upgrade using artificial obsolence
All the article says is "the ribbon interface is less intuitive than the menu driven one, and it takes time to learn".
Meanwhile, Office 2007 would probably be mandatory for new functionality in new products from Microsoft - just as Office 2003 is mandatory for some functionality (edit in dataview) for Sharepoint Server 2003