If we only could get a HD release of the original theatrical releases of the first ones (S.W., the Empre Strikes back and just to complete it Return)
My opinion changes. At times I would love the originals. At other times I would like a careful merging of the originals and Lucas' reworks. The CGI for the space scenes may a nice modernization. No plot changes though, Han shoots first, no infantile CGI additions like turning the corner during a chase and finding 50 additional unexpected stormtroopers rather than a few more unexpected, etc.
Such selective merging works with the general theme that Lucas can come up with some good ideas but he needs adult supervision to prevent him from taking something too far.
.... still use one. This makes me want to go get an iPhone.
Why, isn't this the same policy they always had? They have a copy of the encryption keys and release them when a lawful warrant is received?
I was a little kid when I saw that show, and even then, it was obvious it was a piece of crap.
A little kid in the 1960s when it originally aired, or later decades when it was in syndication? The special effects and such need to be viewed in that context. We were barely putting people into orbit at the time, viewers had little reference for "space". Silver spray paint on army surplus boots was pretty common, even in feature films. At least until Kubrick's 2001 increased consumer expectations.
The 1970s Battlestar Galactic had special effects and production values and plots that we laugh/cringe at today, however look at what was done with that remake.
Space 1999, U.F.O. (The British show).
Plus "The Starlost" (Canadian show), writer Harlan Ellison.
As a child I was a sucker for anything space related. Still am.
While Microsoft did port NT to those 3 CPUs you mention,
Actually MIPS was not a port. MIPS was the original development platform, one way to make sure its not x86 dependent, then x86 was added. NT was essentially developed on MIPS and x86 in parallel.
... they did not support it beyond getting the OS itself on them. Like Visual Studio - they did Intel only,
Actually Microsoft Word and Excel were PowerPC native. Adobe Photoshop too.
... and DEC had to support the Alpha version, and maybe NEC the MIPS one.
Alpha wasn't targeting consumers like PowerPC was. It was targeting servers and high end workstations, productivity apps weren't really needed.
What I suggested above was that had Microsoft made Windows 7 for the RISC versions - letting their memory requirements be 4GB or above - and put all their own major apps on that, they would have had a good chance of succeeding. Some of the Alphas of that time were equivalent to some of today's x64s, so given a 64-bit OS, that could have worked, and Alpha too would have gone towards reducing the power consumption.
The market had spoken long before Windows 7. The market wanted low cost and backwards compatibility.
As far as CHRP goes, the primary blame goes on IBM for failing to deliver on OS/2 for PowerPC. NT was never gonna be a primary driver for PowerPC, given that it was already there on MIPS and Alpha. CHRP was good as long as there was something to run on it, but Apple failed to deliver on Pink, Copeland or Gerschwin, and once they acquired NEXT, Steve recognized the futility of trying to go against Microsoft and canned Power Computing. So given that Apple wasn't committed to defining the standard, IBM should have done it w/ OS/2 on PPC. It would have enabled them to move both their hardware and software solutions to a single platform that they could brand all their own for the PC market.
I don't know, I think the market had spoken on OS/2 as well. I remember OS/2 2.0, it was amazing compared to its contemporary 16-bit Windows 3.1. Windows NT was still only in beta. And the market largely did not care, on a platform where OS/2 2.0 offered absolutely superb legacy support for existing Windows apps. Something one would not have under PowerPC. The only thing that made sense with respect to PowerPC would be a single platform able to run Windows NT and Mac OS. We already had a single platform for Windows NT and OS/2.
Because ransomware attacks are for money, and target business and in some cases government itself, and involve large numbers of people at once, surely it's NOT being treated as a local problem: https://www.fbi.gov/news/stori...
By different jurisdictions I am referring to different nations, places where the FBI would receive little to no cooperation.
And the NSA would love to be able to mail a ransomware operation to burnish its battered image. If it could do so, it would.
No. Why in the world would they potentially compromise their sources and methods on something as petty as ransomeware? The NSA is not law enforcement, they are in the intelligence gathering business. Discovering a petty criminal is something to note in their database, not do anything about.
>> That is a highly flawed argument. For example nearly all those Android users have no interest in Linux, do not even know it is there. The operating system these users care about is Android, and Linux
That is a highly flawed argument. For example nearly all those Windows users have no interest in Windows. They rather would like to get work done.
Actually they have an interest in Windows-based apps so they do have an interest in Windows. Note the negative reviews of Chromebooks, lots and lots of complaints about not being able to installed Windows apps.
And this tangent has little to do with the fact that nearly all Android users and developers don't care about Linux and Linux does little to let them get their work done. It simply hosts Android, the operating system that their apps run on, the apps that let users get things done. The "embedded" Linux vs desktop Windows comparison made earlier remains absurd.
I remember in college where I struggled w/ Unix terminals, not knowing much more than ls. Using a NEXT in our Computer Center totally exposed the power of Unix for me.
My computer science department evolved out of the math department. While computer science degrees had been awarded for quite some time the CS department was organizationally a specialty within the math department. When CS became its own independent department in the 90s assets had to allocated. There was a fight over who would get the NeXT workstations and who would get "stuck" with the Sun workstations. Students and faculty loved NeXTSTEP and its development tools.
There are more Linux devices in the world than Windows devices
That is a highly flawed argument. For example nearly all those Android users have no interest in Linux, do not even know it is there. The operating system these users care about is Android, and Linux merely sits behind the scenes hosting Android. If Linux were to be replaced by BSD as Android's underlying host nearly zero Android users would know or care if told.
Even the vast majority of Android developers have no interest in the underlying Linux host. Linux does not compromise part of the Android API.
In comparison, people who are buying personal computers are expecting Windows. Hell, even many people buying Macs have some interest in Windows and dual boot.
"Actually given that bitcoin is based on a public ledger that documents each and every transfer of coins, the blockchain, tracing the transfers between accounts and creating a network of relationships is quite trivial. If a transaction touches the real world, a live visit to a merchant, a delivery to an address, a payment for a service, etc there is no anonymity. Any single member of a network who touches the real world can expose the network."
So why is it that when ransomware attackers are paid in bitcoin, the transactions are not traceable?
Convenience. Easiest way to convert between real currencies and transfer money around the world. Rock solid verification of the transfer in a very short amount of time. And the likelihood that law enforcement in their jurisdiction will not care about a petty financial crime in the jurisdiction of the victim.
That's what this sounds like. Great way for certain Sunni extremists to shift money around.
Actually given that bitcoin is based on a public ledger that documents each and every transfer of coins, the blockchain, tracing the transfers between accounts and creating a network of relationships is quite trivial. If a transaction touches the real world, a live visit to a merchant, a delivery to an address, a payment for a service, etc there is no anonymity. Any single member of a network who touches the real world can expose the network.
Bitcoin is an incredible investigatory tool for law enforcement.
"Help Mr. Wizard!" -- Tennessee Tuxedo