Exactly what wasn't going to happen. IBM wasn't going to waste time reimplementing that moving target and there was zero chance MS would license it.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
This is kind of funny because I remember people using funky 3270 and 5250 boards with DOS drivers in their OS/2 2.0 workstations. I mean, i'm sure you're right, but i'm also sure that most shops didn't implement this correctly.
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.
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.
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".
A $9.99 upgrade plan from any prior OS would have been enough to avoid that. Instead, they charged $49.99, if my memory serves. But IBM's failure with OS/2 had to do with application development, not price.
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.
3) Current leadership is incompetent and lacks the will to do something about it.
I vote 3.
The turtle lady was wrong.
I feel like an airship would be a lot more effective and safe for this purpose. Why doesn't anyone talk about that? Why always fixed wing drone technology?
What if I don't want an unmanned fixed wing aircraft loitering over my head for months, just waiting to have a catastrophic mechanical failure and kill me randomly?
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.
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
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.