Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Sorry They're Changing (Score 1) 490

by bws111 (#48220609) Attached to: FTDI Removes Driver From Windows Update That Bricked Cloned Chips

If your company is so poorly run that you don't have certification processes and suppliers you can trust then you deserve to go under. If you have to destroy a few chips every now and then to make sure you are getting what you paid for, then you do that. If you have to have wording in your contracts with your suppliers that they are responsible for using genuine parts, then you do that, and you hold them to it.

Every industry has counterfeiters. Responsible manufacturers know how to deal with it.

Comment: Re:"general market" computers (Score 1) 121

by bws111 (#48207643) Attached to: Xerox Alto Source Code Released To Public

Exactly where in that post do you see anything at all about 'converging mainframe architectures'? He talks about 'tabulators, time clocks, and other specialized machines', then starts talking about general purpose computers. And, in fact, that is pretty much what the division was - there were specialized machines for things, and then there were general purpose computers and the specialized machines died off. The problem with his post is not in the definition of general purpose, it is that he is about 2 decades off from when the transition happened.

And even if you want to stick with your ridiculous interpretation, the 'covergence' happened with the 360, a decade and a half before he thinks. And the 360 was successful immediately - those 2000 orders in the first 8 weeks did not go primarily to universities. The things cost $2M to buy, or rented for $20K/month in 1964. Not many universities had that kind of cash to shell out.

Comment: Re:Huh, what? (Score 1) 121

by bws111 (#48206259) Attached to: Xerox Alto Source Code Released To Public

What does being able to efficiently perform scientific calculations have to do with something being defined as a general purpose computer? NOTHING. General purpose says NOTHING about the suitability of a processor for a given task.

The processor in your cell phone is a general purpose computer. Is it particularly good at performing high-precision scientific calculations? No. Is it particularly good at performing decimal operations? No. Does that mean it is not a general purpose computer? NO!

Many businesses had 1401s, and 360s, and CDCs, and Univacs, etc. What were they all doing? WHATEVER THE CUSTOMER WANTED. Why were they not all doing exactly the same thing, exactly the same way? Because they were GENERAL PURPOSE COMPUTERS.

Comment: Re:Huh, what? (Score 1) 121

by bws111 (#48205987) Attached to: Xerox Alto Source Code Released To Public

What odd definition of 'general purpose computer' are you using? A 'general purpose computer' is a computer that can be programmed. 'General purpose' has NOTHING to do with binary or decimal modes, or scientific vs commercial applications. Earlier models of 'computers' were NOT general purpose, they had specific built-in functions, such as adding machines or tragectory calculators, and that is all they did. The 1401 is certainly a general purpose computer. The fact that you list RPG and COBOL proves that it was, in fact, a general purpose computer.

Comment: Re:Huh, what? (Score 1) 121

by bws111 (#48205603) Attached to: Xerox Alto Source Code Released To Public

Who said otherwise? I was responding to the incredibly inaccurate statement that general purpose computers were not used by businesses until the late 70s and 80s. Regardless of whether or not older equipment was still in use, general purpose computers WERE used by businesses long before that. The 1401 was a general purpose computer, and they had orders for more than 5000 of them the first month, in 1959. The 360 was a general purpose computer and they had orders for 2000 of those in the first couple of months, in 1964.

In 1969 (a full decade before this guy claims businesses used general purpose computers) the DOJ filed an anti-trust suit against IBM alleging that IBM was 'monopolizing or attempting to monopolize the general purpose electronic digital computer market, specifically computers designed primarily for business'. How to you monopolize a market that does not exist?

Comment: Re:We need to do it lke Europe. (Score 1) 120

by bws111 (#48196943) Attached to: Safercar.gov Overwhelmed By Recall For Deadly Airbags

And just how do they fix ALL the cars? Do they come and tow the car out of your garage if you don't get to the dealer in a fixed amount of time? Or do they make it illegal for the owner to drive the car until it is fixed (which puts a burden on the owner, not the manufacturer)?

And if you buy a used car, you can STILL go to the dealer and see if there are any outstanding recalls on the vehicle.

Comment: Re:We need to do it lke Europe. (Score 1) 120

by bws111 (#48196153) Attached to: Safercar.gov Overwhelmed By Recall For Deadly Airbags

WTF are you talking about? The car companies ARE responsible for fixing this. And every new car comes with this thing called a 'warranty', which means the manufacturer is responsible for defects in a new car. And many (most? all?) states have 'lemon laws' for when warranty repairs are not enough.

Comment: Re:Seems to be a contradiction (Score 1) 447

by bws111 (#48130695) Attached to: Statisticians Uncover What Makes For a Stable Marriage

Yes, and? The cost of a PARTICULAR wedding will of course rise if there are more guests, but that is not what they are talking about when they are talking about the cost of a wedding. You can have a wedding with 200 people and only spend $10K, or you can have a wedding with 20 people and spend $100K.

Comment: Re:Doesn't add up (Score 1) 447

by bws111 (#48130517) Attached to: Statisticians Uncover What Makes For a Stable Marriage

Way to completely miss the point. Some people choose the venue NOT because of the size, but because they simply MUST 'have the best'. Or maybe they choose the venue to fulfill a fantasy. For instance, you can get married in Disney World. You can choose all kinds of options, such as having the wedding party arrive in horse-drawn carriages, etc. You can spend many 10's of thousands of dollars before even ONE guest is invited. And when you do invite your first guest, the price does not double.

Apart from the venue there are also things like the wedding dress - do you have any idea on the price range for wedding dresses? Same for things like flowers, photographers, etc.

THAT is what they are talking about, not stupid crap like '20 people cost more that 10 people'.

Anybody who thinks that wedding costs only scale with the number of people is a fool.

Comment: Re:Correlaton? (Score 1) 447

by bws111 (#48129899) Attached to: Statisticians Uncover What Makes For a Stable Marriage

If you have a lot of people at a wedding where you are not spending a lot of money, those people are there because they care about you. That is a good thing.

If you spend a lot of money on a wedding that does not have a lot of guests, it indicates that appearances are very important to you. That is not a good thing.

Comment: Re:Doesn't add up (Score 1) 447

by bws111 (#48129853) Attached to: Statisticians Uncover What Makes For a Stable Marriage

Since cost of a wedding scales linearly with the number of attendees

Where do you get that stupid idea? Go price a wedding venue for 200 people, then see if you can have the same venue for 10% of the cost if you only invite 20 people. Food and drink may 'scale', the price of the venue, entertainment, etc does not.

Murphy's Law, that brash proletarian restatement of Godel's Theorem. -- Thomas Pynchon, "Gravity's Rainbow"

Working...