Thinks it's a hoot
$10B in loot
GM still a coot
But on 6502 machines one did not have to wait for the vertical sync to update the video memory.
I'm pretty sure you believe that, because the only 6502-based machines you've worked with have very low resolution. (Both the C64 and Apple II were 40x24.) I have a 6502-based machine, at home, whose resolution is 64x32, and it does require you to pay attention to Vsync. It's easy to play tricks like that, when you cut corners.
6502-machines' 40-column displays are probably one of contributing factors to their reputation as gaming machines, since they don't work well for business, and most Z80-based machines at the time were 80x25.
For all its servers and software, Google does not have an Army or a Navy.
This wouldn't -- no counldn't have happenned in the days before computers.
Eventually, I think centralised computer control is going to go the way of semaphore. It's too easy for a centralised computer system to glitch, break, be shutdown, and then screw up the lives and functions of millions.
What we should see is decentralised systems run using independent computer systems.
No need. Orcs mostly speak the common tongue or else their own tribal dialect. The Black Speech -- as devised by the Dark Lord in elvish runes -- was a failed attempt to linguistically distinguish his followers from those of the Alliance. It didn't take among the Orcs, but strangely the East End London accent did.
The journals of course are businesses and quite reasonably want to stay in business and make a profit.
Sadly I don't have a good idea for a solution.
Nationalise the journals.
Software has been eating the free lunch Moore was providing before it got to the users; the sad reality is that the typical end-user hasn't seen much in the way of performance improvements - in some cases, common tasks are even slower now than 10 years ago.
This point of view is common, even though its odd disparity with reality make it seem almost anachronistic. Software isn't bloating anywhere near as much as expectations are.
Oh, sure, it's true that much software is slower than its predecessor. Windows 7 is considerably slower, given the same hardware, than Windows XP which is a dog compared to Windows 95, on the same hardware. But the truth is that we aren't running on the same hardware, and our expectations have risen dramatically. But in actual fact, most implementations of compilers and algorithms show consistent improvements in speed. More recent compilers are considerably faster than older ones. Newer compression software is faster (often by orders of magnitude!) than earlier versions. Software processes such as voice recognition, facial pattern matching, lossy compression algorithms for video and audio, and far too many other things to name have all improved consistently over time. For a good example of this type of improvement, take a look at the recent work on "faster than fast" Fourier Transforms as an easy reference.
So why does it seem that software gets slower and slower? I remember when my Dell Inspiron 600m was a slick, fast machine. I was amazed at all the power in this little package! And yet, even running the original install of Windows XP, I can't watch Hulu on it - it simply doesn't have the power to run full screen, full motion, compressed video in real time. I was stunned at how long (a full minute?) the old copy of Open Office took to load, even though I remember running it on the same machine! (With my i7 laptop with SSD and 8 GB of RAM, OpenOffice loads in about 2 seconds)
Expectations are what changed more than the software.
This isn't an anti-patent troll bill. It's an anti-small inventor bill.
If so, good then; the sooner the myth of patents being for the small inventor dies the sooner everyone will finally be rid of the impediment of patents forever.
It's another FU to small inventor, just like the last patent reform.
The small inventor, and the little guy in general, has been FU-ed out of the game for a long time now. Patents are now all about legal fights and trolling, not innovation or rewarding it. It's time for them to die.
Wouldn't it be nice if the facts fit your wishes? Too bad that they don't.
Microsoft pretty much does sell it's stuff with little resistance. Windows 8 sales are down, but MS has made it clear that they're willing to take a short term hiccup in order to position themselves for the mobile movement. Win 8 on the Desktop is still a pain, but reviews are that it's in league with Android/iOS as a mobile platform purely on its own technical merits. It may well be that the Desktop/Mobile schizm is resolved over time as desktops pick up mobile features, such as touch screens. As an example, my wife's new Dell laptop has a touch screen, light weight, and decent (8 hours) battery life - three things that mobile devices traditionally had over the lap/desk top.
Since the rule of thumb is "buy the 3rd one" the next update to Windows 8 (which is really a new usability model) will probably be the one that gets traction. They sold XBox at a loss for years before it finally became profitable. If you remember history, it took some time (of significant losses) before MS Word beat out Word Perfect, and for Excel to beat out Lotus 123.
They have a monopoly on Desktop OSs, something they are now using (again) to leverage their way into a new market. (Mobile) And slowly, it's working. Windows 8 phone passed 10% market share in Europe recently. It became #3 in the USA some time ago. And while these milestones seem meager, if they only increase their percentage marginally from year to year, eventually they'll rule the roost as they've done with their Desktop OS. And they have more money than many countries, which buys them a *lot* of a time. That's no guarantee of success, but they are, in no fashion, doomed to fail, regardless of how many "fumbles" you may perceive.
The real question to be answered over the next 2-5 years is whether or not Android can become replace Windows faster than Windows can replace Android.
... a position which is frightfully naive. Of course making things more illegal is a deterrent. It used to be totally legal to drive with your kids in the back of your truck on the open freeway. It's now more illegal (at least in California) and you don't see (very many) people driving on the freeway with kids in the back of their truck.
All officially recognized crimes are punished with the intent of deterring future crime, and you live in a time and place which ranks as among the most peaceful and civilized periods in all of known history. To suggest that this concept does not work betrays a stunning lack of understanding and respect for all the work put in by the millions of people who worked to establish and maintain the system that provides such domestic peace and tranquility.
Did you actually think that spending 10 years in jail actually compensates the parents and loved ones of a murder victim? Sorry, if they're dead, no amount of punishment will ever bring them back, and until you've personally experienced the loss of a close loved one, you cannot really understand just how devastating such a loss can be.
However, even sociopaths can understand personal injury and suffering even if they lack the ability empathize in any way with their victims.
Or did, until you commented on TFA...
[this is some random stuff so that slashot will take my post.]
If you think SSDs fail because a part "fails" you lack understanding of how they work.
SSDs have a property called "write endurance" - their data cells are rated to a specific number of writes. Every time you write, you consume some of the remaining write capacity of the drive. It works like a salt shaker: works find until you run out of salt.
Enterprise drives can have dozens to hundreds of times the write endurance of a consumer drive. For example, the Intel SSDs we use are rated to withstand 100% of the drive's capacity in writes every 24 hours for many years on end. A consumer drive couldn't do that for more than a few weeks, perhaps a month or two.
I'd happily pay 2x or 3x the money to get 20x the write endurance.
Exactly. For content consumption, small and mobile devices are very convenient.
Who exactly spends all of their time simply "consuming" on these devices? It's virtually impossible to spend more than a day online without feeling the urge to add to the conversation, and all iDink devices and touchscreen interfaces do is get in the way of that (2-way) conversation with the outside world.
As to the consumption itself, as far as I can see, everything is clunkier on touch device. Everything. Designers are having to make buttons and icons cartoon sized in order to accomidate simple viewing on these "computers".
I simply cannot accept the proposition that people are -- willingly -- going to accept a future of either creation or consuption on these restricted devices. Even if the whole industry collectively decides to abandon PCs, in a decade or so the current infants playing with iDinks will manage to "rediscover tactile touch based text input devices once called 'keyboards' " as a faster, better method of interfacing with their computers.
Eventually, some of them will even rediscover the command line as well.
When you talk to managers, you need to talk business. Throw every reason you think important into the trashcan. Then build your case from the ground up as a business case. Show that it saves the company money or increases productivity. Basically, make the case that your proposal == more $$$.
Essentially, you must dance the corporate Dance of the Seven Veils, in order to entice managers in the only language they are able to speak.