Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:Government would've jumped on them (Score 1) 75

by HBI (#49382197) Attached to: Microsoft Considered Giving Away Original Xbox

By the time of Warp, the battle was over. OS/2 2.0 was IBM's only opportunity - a window between 3.1 and the release of Win 95. They got decent market penetration and even switched a few corporate shops over to OS/2. 2.0 had no TCP/IP stack at the time. I believe it came along with Warp 3.0 Connect, which was released in May 1995, too late to make a difference in the adoption of 3.1 and 95.

Comment: Re:Government would've jumped on them (Score 1) 75

by HBI (#49381301) Attached to: Microsoft Considered Giving Away Original Xbox

I'll grant you that the OEM deals helped, but before even 95 came out, people wanted Office. There were WordPerfect holdouts and people who liked Quattro Pro. But it was fast becoming a Microsoft world and none of the competitors stood a chance against Office. IBM created a suite but it was too little, too late.

The OEM deals wouldn't have worked if people purchasing in the commercial space didn't want Windows. It made things easier than dealing with the licensing for different applications from different vendors, and buying Microsoft appeared cheaper at the time than being on an upgrade treadmill with multiple companies. "You mean I can get rid of Foxpro, Wordperfect and even Novell? Sign me up." This would have happened regardless of the OEM bundling. Reducing the friction of licensing is primarily what won that world for Microsoft.

What the OEM deals primarily did was to make sure home users ended up with Windows, which gave them the gaming market for a while.

Comment: Re:Government would've jumped on them (Score 3, Interesting) 75

by HBI (#49380167) Attached to: Microsoft Considered Giving Away Original Xbox

Every successful OS over the microcomputer age has had a killer app, something that it did that other competing machines did not. Something to sell it. Apple IIs had VisiCalc. The IBM PC had Lotus 1-2-3. Macintoshes had Pagemaker and later Quark. Windows had the Office suite, ultimately. OS/2 had nothing. Sure, it was great at running other OS' apps - it was a great DOS emulator and did Windows 3.1 pretty excellently, but it had no killer app of its own. This was mainly because IBM didn't consider it important to get people to write apps for its OS.

You can call that a lack of marketing and still be right. It's just not "marketing in general" but "marketing to developers".

Comment: Re:*sigh* (Score 1) 299

by HBI (#49359737) Attached to: Iowa's Governor Terry Branstad Thinks He Doesn't Use E-mail

He was born in Canada. But, his mother was a US citizen and only there due to her husband's work, and I think as a result he does qualify as native born. McCain was born in the Canal Zone and we've had a few other situations like that. I think that even if Obama had been born in Kenya, as some aver, he would probably have been adjudged as native born due to his mother similarly being a US citizen.

Comment: Re:This is a silly article (Score 1) 228

by HBI (#49338001) Attached to: How Nuclear Weapon Modernization Undercuts Disarmament

There are nuclear equivalents to most conventional weapons - Tomahawk missiles had a nuclear payload designed for them, for instance. Bolting on a nuclear warhead onto most weapons isn't impossible. Of course, the issue is - who is going to use them and risk escalation?

The answer, in general, is no one. There is a line there, and once crossed, it opens up the use of even half megaton strategic assets. Or a FOBS.

Comment: This is a silly article (Score 4, Insightful) 228

by HBI (#49337083) Attached to: How Nuclear Weapon Modernization Undercuts Disarmament

Only in the eyes of an ivory tower theoretical type could the tripwire of nuclear weapons first use be "eased" by "low yield". No matter how low the yield, the secondary effects of the nuclear weapon remain the same. It remains a WMD. If someone lobs a "low yield" nuke at you, do you think you're going to blink an eye before using your own arsenal? The whole premise is silly.

Nuclear disarmament is a fool's errand. The deterrent effect of a nuclear arsenal cannot easily be understated. All nations would aspire to it, if it were possible. They aren't going away, and reducing the arsenal below a certain point may actually be more destabilizing than maintaining more warheads. (see below)

The construction of newer weapons has no impact on the equation, except on the counterforce mission. It might make it easier to destroy your opponent's arsenal, but you still retain the SSBN problem, meaning that in practical terms there is no difference. But newer anti-missile technologies have a similar but greater destabilizing effect on deterrence, as they CAN shoot down the SSBN-based missiles.

tl;dr - article is a bunch of pointless hot air

Comment: Re:May you choke on your own words (Score 1) 316

by HBI (#49329689) Attached to: First Lawsuits Challenging FCC's New Net Neutrality Rules Arrive

What is money except a measure of economic value? What is capital except a measure of society's perceived value in making a task possible? If you have to force people to do something via the application of the government's power of life and death, it probably isn't worth doing. Moonshots don't escape this logic.

I happen to think that space exploration is cool, but wtf, I don't want the letdown of going to the moon and then never going back. And I can't come up with a economically defensible reason to go back, despite the pleasure I take in the actual act of doing so.

You can wave around your Ayn Rand bullshit all you want, but you can't come up with one, either.

Nobody's gonna believe that computers are intelligent until they start coming in late and lying about it.