Arctic mosquitos do. In places too cold for most bees or tundra where there are no trees for a hive arctic mosquitos pollinate and drive you batshit insane at the same time.

Go visit Alaska some time or some other boreal place and your opinion will change VERY rapidly!

That is a relief.

Thanks for the info. ... but your closing statement? You and I both know they won't. They elected an official who promised not to pay with thundering applause from the idiot citizens who voted him in. Wow.

As usual if you are I do not pay off our student loans the banks cash our paybacks and FORCE US to payback where not even bankruptacy starving ourselves and our kids. When nations do it and take down the economy of innocent parties then it is business as usual. No consequences etc.

I am not a socialist by any sense of the means about income inequality but man it does boil my blood as the bigger parties like whole banks, industries, and countries get off the hook but we are supposed to be responsible yada yada

But that line could change.

Psychology played in the Great Recession which magnified it after the math failed. No one trusted each other and banks borrowed from each other with credit asset swapping. (Why weren't they labeled expenses??)

So viola they all told each other you are no good. BOOM! Collapse and Uncle Sam had to come in and payback and buy the junk assets to try to have them trust each other again.

If Greece goes Italy will be viewed next (bad side). If they go fear will spread and those like Portugal WILL get shafted as investors know no one else will pay for their bonds so if you buy your money will be out the window etc. The bonds are worth as much as toilet paper as no one will buy them due to fear.

Yes this sounds nonsensical but in the great recession, 1929, and other events in history it has happened. I doubt banks hold less greek bonds unless the IMF bought them all? Why? Let's say you own them? Who in their right mind would buy them?! No one. You are stuck holding them or selling them at a HUGE loss.

Let's say you and I and a friend need some money.

We borrow from each other and swap the debt around and as long as the chain is good and we *trust* each other and pay back things run smoothly. Let's say I owe less but say I can't pay you 2 back. Then comes fear with you and the other guy saying to each other you are no good.

This sounds silly and nonsensical but happened in the USA in 2008. Psychology as no one trusted each other and said they were no good the assets instantly turned into expenses that no one could afford.

Yes, Greece is tiny. But what is to say spooked investors who lost tons of cash now look at Ireland and Italy next. Everyone does it and now Italy is no good because the other investors said so. It can't borrow to pay its bills, etc. Spain, then eventually the US.

Swapping debt assets seem stupid like the children's hot potato game where as long as you are not holding the potato when the bill is due you gain.

I am nervous as this feels like early 2008 all over again.

People though ack a few banks will be late paying each other for it's silly home instruments. Big deal let's buy banking shares now while they are cheap etc ...

We all know what happened next? Last year we finally came close to full recovery. The house of cards collapsed and is still being pumped up by the federal Reserve as we never had a full collapse!

Japan, America, and the EU may be next should Greece not to pay with skyrocketing rates and a great depression awaiting as the Federal Reserve won't be able to pump borrowed money to the banks, again.

Am I the only one who sees this?

There were a few things (GDI handles and suchlike) that had very small limits. Once you exhausted them, the system was basically unusable. There was a little program you could run that would show the number allocated vs allowed. By the time you'd launched one program, they were normally 60-90% gone.

These two are related. OS/2 needed 16MB of RAM to be useable back when I had a 386 that couldn't take more than 5MB (1MB soldered onto the board, 4x1MB matched SIMMs). Windows NT had the same problem - NT4 needed 32MB as an absolute minimum when Windows 95 could happily run in 16 and unhappily run in 8 (and allegedly run in 4MB, but I tried that once and it really wasn't a good idea). The advantage that Windows NT had was that it used pretty much the same APIs as Windows 95 (except DirectX, until later), so the kinds of users who were willing to pay the extra costs could still run the same programs as the ones that weren't.

I never ran 3.0 on a 386 to try that. On Windows 3.1 it wouldn't work, because the OS required either (286) protected mode or (386) enhanced mode. Running 3.0 on a 386, the DOS prompt would use VM86 mode (yes, x86 has had virtualisation support for a long time, but only for 16-bit programs). Windows 3.0 could run in real mode, so would work inside VM86 mode. In real mode, it didn't have access to VM86 mode (no nested virtualisation), so probably couldn't start again.

I'm not sure if it ever became a real product, but the Novell guys did have Netware running as a paravirtualised Xen guest. Apparently it was quite an interesting challenge, as Netware was one of the few operating systems to use rings 1 and 2 on i386.

And Windows 3.1 lost real mode support. You could run Windows 3.0 on an 8086 with an EGA screen and 640KB of RAM (I did - the machine originally shipped with GEM). I think 3.1 still have 286 protected mode support, but didn't work very well unless you ran it in 386 enhanced mode. It was a bit sad that the version of Windows that required an MMU didn't use it to implement memory protection...

Sort of. The desire not to cannibalise sales was a key factor in the design of the PC, but these were also features that IBM didn't think would be missed.

IBM knew what multitasking was for: it was to allow multiple users to use the same computer with administrator-controled priorities. Protected memory was for the same things. Why would you need these on a computer that was intended for a single user to use? A single user can obviously only run one program at a time (they only have one set of eyes and hands) and you can save a lot in hardware (and software) if you remove the ability to do more. And, of course, then no one will start buying the cheap PCs and hooking them up to a load of terminals rather than buying a minicomputer or mainframe.

My father's company got their first Windows 3.0 install because they bought a diagram tool (Meta Design, I think), that came with a free copy. The company that made it had decided that bundling a copy of Windows 3.0 was cheaper than writing (or licensing) a graphical toolkit for DOS and an associated set of printer drivers. I don't know if they were the only company to do this, but after a year or so they stopped bundling Windows and just expected their customers to either have a copy already or go and buy one.

Macs had cooperative multitasking since 1984. Windows 3.0 also had cooperative multitasking. It didn't need dos emulation and weird graphics hacks as it was built from the ground up rather than an add on hack for Windows. Mac II was color in 1987.

My point is Windows was a low grade hack until Windows 95 where it became a pseudo OS with more hacks upon hacks to get anything to work until XP came along and kicked the nasty model to the curb for all pcs

You know just because you all hated the leather background in the Mac address book does not mean you need to get rid of shininess, chrome, depth perception, and other features which actually helped the user distinguish which Window was active.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! Give me my damn skuemorphism back. It works fine. I know NO ONE and I mean NO ONE besides hipster graphic designers afraid to have anything modern looking on their portfolio as other hipster artist look at them before hiring them. It creates a cycle of race to the bottom of less graphics, less detail, blinding white, 72x text.

SKUEMORPHISM != REALISM folks and MS appearently thinks it does.