I'm not a pilot. My argument against them, when I grew out of my teen fantasy world, was always "What the hell am I going to do 1000 feet in the air when my gas runs out?" The failure mode of a car is pull it to the side of the road and put your hazard lights on. The failure mode to a flying car is to crash it into the ground. This of course convinces absolutely no one who was enthusiastic about the idea that you should, for the sake of safety, avoid crossing underneath skyways.
Your comment about "pushing it to a platform like Github where it typically sits and rusts" is telling. What do you think will really change if you just shift when you push your code to Github?
In a nutshell, "if you build it, they will come" is a nice fantasy, nothing more.
Even very high-profile open source projects often have very few contributors outside of the companies that first created them.
And I don't think the problem is that these projects don't get community developers on board soon enough. Why would a hobbyist or other unpaid developer risk devoting time and resources to a project that is mostly vaporware?
The problem is that it's very difficult to get unaffiliated developers to commit to working on something -- especially business software -- when there's no real incentive other than "someday this may end up being a product that your company might decide to evaluate to see if it might be possible to use instead of the commercial alternative that it has already sunk capital into and has been using for the last five years."
Sure. Here's a transcript of the earnings call. (You may need to register to read it.)
Nadella does say, early on in his prepared comments, that, "We will streamline the next version of Windows from three operating systems into one single converged operating system for screens of all sizes."
Later during the Q&A session, however, he was asked about how this "one version for all devices" would change the number of Windows SKUs that are available, and he said this:
Yes. My statement Heather was more to do with just even the engineering approach. The reality is that we actually did not have one Windows; we had multiple Windows operating systems inside of Microsoft. We had one for phone, one for tablets and PCs, one for Xbox, one for even embedded. So we had many, many of these efforts. So now we have one team with the layered architecture that enables us to in fact one for developers bring that collective opportunity with one store, one commerce system, one discoverability mechanism. It also allows us to scale the UI across all screen sizes; it allows us to create this notion of universal Windows apps and being coherent there.
So that’s what more I was referencing and our SKU strategy will remain by segment, we will have multiple SKUs for enterprises, we will have for OEM, we will have for end-users. And so we will – be disclosing and talking about our SKUs as we get further along, but this my statement was more to do with how we are bringing teams together to approach Windows as one ecosystem very differently than we ourselves have done in the past.
Lots of hedging in there. You don't need a single, converged OS to give developers "one store, one commerce system, one discoverability system." Those are all ancillary functions. A "team with the layered architecture" doesn't sound like every version of Windows is going to share the same layers. And clearly nothing about Windows is going to be simplified from the customer's perspective; there will still be six or eight SKUs, with each offering different benefits.
Rather, I take Nadella's comments to mean he's streamlining the OS engineering group so that the people working on each Windows platform work in tandem with the others and they all have similar goals, milestones, etc (good).
I also take it to mean that Microsoft will offer developers who are building so-called Modern apps a common set of APIs that will be available on the various form factors, so they eventually should only have to write their apps once and they will run on every kind of device. That sounds OK, but it's only going to be true for Windows Store apps -- and to achieve that, you don't need every device to be running an identical OS.
In other words, no Holy Grail here, but Microsoft is streamlining and rationalizing its OS engineering efforts, which makes good sense at this juncture.
They're not talking about the interface. They're talking about the underlying nuts-and-bolts stuff.
No, they're really more talking about the interface. The underlying nuts and bolts are already pretty much the same, in that Windows, Windows RT, and Windows Phone all share the same NT kernel. But above that there is plenty that's different from platform to platform. What Nadella wants to do is unify the development model and allow developers to create apps with UIs that react and readjust depending on the screen size of the device they're running on, much like how modern websites can support multiple screen sizes. All this talk about "one version of Windows" stems from a single, oversimplified comment Nadella made on the earnings call. When asked about it later, he completely backtracked and said there would not be any such thing.
I would hope this unification means that there will be suffice emulation built into windows that it will pick the kernel/libs/drivers required by the CPU arch, and userland apps can run in emulation (even if slowly) if they are compiled for the wrong proc. This would be a unified windows, that allows x86 and 64 bit apps run on ARM and vice versa (although the other direction is likely not as useful).
Unfortunately for you, the actual article says the exact opposite of the summary (so what else is new on
As for roads, most of them were made by private people and companies, long before government got involved.
I give him credit for not reminding you that he never even used the word "government." He said "society." You want rid of that, go live on some forgotten island in Indonesia and see how long you last. Until then, your attitude of "I've got mine, plus all the benefits society gives me as well, so fuck you, Jack" is not just selfish and stupid, it's completely morally bankrupt. You're a turd and you're really not worth anyone's breath.
Good bye source compatibility. We hardly knew ye.
First Windows, and now OSX. I am still maintaining applications that are built crossplatform (Windows/Mac/Linux, with unified GUI look) but it's getting harder every year and, by the looks of it, will be impossible soon.
That's a kinda silly thing to say. Anytime a problem comes up like this, it creates an opportunity for vendors. In the game development world, you have toolkits like Unity. Xamarin is already helping developers port C# code to OS X. And there are and will be lots of other solutions.
And Apple isn't even abandoning support for Objective-C. Nobody is being forced to code in Swift.
The developer didn't have time to implement UEFI support, so he's killed the project instead.
But what sense would that make? Why not just say, "Somebody else will have to implement UEFI support, because I'm Audi 5000" and abandon the project where it sits?
I read an article that Microsoft got rid of the start->shutdown button to turn off your computer. This freaked people out, even though for 15 years you've been able to just hit the power button and it would turn off properly.
Yeah, but isn't it idiotic that to stop everything and shut down your computer, you clicked on "Start"?
why cant I have a single option, "Expert mode" that disabled ALL the freaking help shit and un-hides all functions?
That might be nice, but it's not hard to disable all of that stuff from the options. I use Word all day, every single day, and I don't ever have to wrestle with it. It does auto-correct some of my typos, too, for which I'm thankful.
If anyone can become a jedi, why are jedi special? Their restrictive moral code?
Methinks you need to go back and watch Empire. There's a whole section in the middle with this little green guy that basically is all about your question.
No they were there on purpose, and they were all real, too. They weren't added in with CG, Abrams actually had people hiding around the set to shine lights into the lenses.
Wowwww.... of all the trash people have to talk about Phantom Menace, I actually thought it was OK at the time. Maybe I was rationalizing. But Attack of the Clones was truly terrrrrrible, like really, really "I want my money and my time back" bad.
The Empire Strikes Back is the better movie for plenty of reasons (and the best of the franchise) but Star Wars, just Star Wars, is my favorite.
I disagree. Empire is superior in various aspects (SFX wise, acting wise, mood wise) but I don't think they add up to make a better movie. I think people like it because of all the cool stuff in it (AT-ATs, Yoda, Boba Fett) but if you think about it, it kinda starts in the middle of nowhere, ends in the middle of nowhere, and the heroes lose. It's just nowhere near as satisfying as the original, if you ask me.
Oh, and if you're an old crank like me, was your reaction to the big "revelation" about Darth Vader like mine -- you assumed he was lying? Seriously, it probably wasn't until I actually saw Jedi that people could convince me it wasn't some kind of con designed by Vader to place doubt in Luke's mind. Even as a little kid, it came from so far left field that it seemed a little silly. Why all the business about Luke's father being "the best star pilot in the galaxy" if from Empire onward he never pilots a single thing?
I humbly submit that, being in the healthcare field, you are seeing a higher concentration of misery than exists in the population-at-large.
How so? Unless you get shot or hit by a train, every single person who lives a normal lifespan and dies in America ends up in the hands of the healthcare industry. So in a sense, his sample of the "population at large" approaches 100%.