Re: Then there is the "send me a copy"
I get Jira issues, with an attached exported email, containing a word document, containing a screenshot
25 posts • joined 2 Jun 2010
Back in the CP/M-80 dark ages, users had a few multiple disk actions [data dump for backup; software update]
The user was instructed to insert disk # 1, 2, 3 - and then complained that they couldn't insert disk 4 - there was no room in the drive
Yes, single sided soft sector drive, and the user inserted with each new floppy on top of the previous floppy [and the holes happened to line up]
This happened more than once, with both customers and our sales/support folks.
It makes more sense if you are using a mechanical teletype, perhaps, but with any software using a cursor addressable terminal it is at best an anachronism and generally a pain in the posterior. Unix, which was used extensively on systems with mechanical teletypes found no need for it but windows, born on a PC, introduced it ... probably with the same malice as changing the / directory delimiter to \ and thus causing grief to this day.
Actually, the CR/LF convention was copied [like much of MS-DOS] from CP/M-80 version 2 conventions. Adapting a stock ASR-33 teletype for unix compatibility required a hardware change to fire off both actions on receipt of a \n 'newline character' [the \r was handled normally, allowing for overprinting to render text on paper as *bold*]
The replacement of the standard path separator '/' with the billslash '\' character was a result of many Microsoft tools [compilers, linker] reserving the slash as it options 'switch character'. MS & PC DOS 2.x had a 'switchchar' environment variable so you could try to set it to '-' instead of '/' - but only the CCP ['console command processor, the DOS prompt command processor] and some third party software [e.g. MicroFocus COBOL] honored the swithchar setting.
I think Microsoft started its version numbering for Windows NT with 3.1 because that was the same version number of the Windows desktop OS at the time. Both desktop and server OS largely shared the same GUI interface.
I remember installing Windows NT 3.1 from floppies for one of my college professors. Due to lack of software support, it wasn't exactly dazzling. It did offer a TCP/IP stack, a trick that took Novell a few (fateful) years to replicate
The software that was released as Windows NT was started [pre divorce] as OS/2 NT - the 'portable' version of OS/2, written in C instead of assembler. It also had a kernel + API design [Win32, Win16, OS/2 1.x, POSIX subset]
From what I recall, NetWare 3.x was introduced a couple of years before WinNT - and had several pluggable network protocols - both TCP/IP and IPX were available, but IPX was easier to configure.
Well, I was present when one IT manager described a "gadget that moved a pointer on the screen"; I said I thought that was a "mouse" - but that was in 1982 - about a year before the Apple Lisa or the Microsoft Mouse appeared.
Could have been a digitizer puck on a CAD workstation, or even an early mouse driven environment like Visi On or Epson Valdocs
I never got into using Eclipse.
This tool is likely based on the open source 'community' edition of IDEA. One of many nice things is that the community edition is free.
The full version of the tool [including all the enterprise bits] is available with a variety of licenses - including free licenses for open source projects.
will have a working clock.
Since I got my Focus, with version 2.11 of MFT, Ford has released three updates without providing a working clock [or addressing other outstanding defects]. Ford has removed useful features, and added an unwanted animated compass. [And the BSoD claims to be 'performing scheduled maintenance']
I think that this is mostly a project management problem. To put it mildly, Ford is not seeking input from users/customers about defects and misfeatrues. [no issue tracking system, pathetic online forums and support]
" around 3,000 pounds – on earth, that is"
The pound is a unit of mass, not weight.
(I assume the article wasn't making some bizarre monetary valuation.)
Actually, in the old style engineering units popular when the Saturn V was flying, the pound is a unit of force, not mass. [Units of Force, TIme and Length are fundamental in the old engineering system]
The 'slug' is the unit of mass - and it is a derived quantity [the amount of mass that a force of one pound accelerates at one foot per second squared].
This is one reason the MKS [Meter - Kilogram - Second] units are more popular today, even with these new fangled calculators to help out.
If you're waiting for scientific proof, you'll wait forever. Science is about "disproof" (falsifiability) - if AGW is theorized (on the basis of available evidence, modelling etc.), then attempts must be made to disprove it - if it continues to resist all such challenges, it is a valid theory, but it can *never* be proved formally.
Actually the burden on proponents of a hypothesis [before it graduates to being a 'theory'] is to provide one or more testable predictions. These would be tests / predictions that would have a different outcome if the hypothesis was a better description of the world than the current, generally accepted theory.
The problem with the CAGW hypothesis is that it fails to accurately predict anything - even [as best as we can measure] the current global climate vs predictions made in the 1980's and 90's [e.g. the hockey stick graph and the underlying model's extrapolations].
What we have seen is all manner of weather events [measured as warmer, cooler, wetter, dryer, with tropical storms, absence of tropical storms....] claimed to be 'consistent with' CAGW scenarios.
Back in 1989 The _Microsoft_ OS/2 2.0 developer kit was $2600. That was the official dev kit for both the IBM and Microsoft developer community.
In 1990, just before the 'divorce' MS was still encouraging developers to target OS/2 2.x and showing previews of OS/2 NT [written in C instead of assembler was it's big feature]. WordPerfect was one of the companies caught in the trap, investing in a native OS/2 version.
In 1991, IBM's OS/2 developer kit was part of a $100 / year annual subscription - and several third party compilers were released.
In 1992 Microsoft's version of OS/2 still had the old program manager / file manager interface, looking just like Windows 2.1 or MS OS/2 1.2
Also in 1992, IBM released their OS/2 2.0 [on 26 floppies] featuring the document oriented 'Workplace Shell'
In 1993 Microsoft renamed the OS/2 3.0 project to Windows NT, and also stated it was a fashionable 'microkernal' based OS. The promise of multiple API personalities had Bill the Gates proclaim "NT is UNIX, in six months it will be the most popular UNIX'. Needless to say, NT was not and is not UNIX [even the fossil POSIX subset api layer has been deleted]
[quote]Technically true - nature has shown the advantage of the negative feedback loop. From stellar fusion, to homeostatis, negative feedback keeps things nicely in order. This reactor design relies on positive feedback with the feedback being actively tempered. It can run perfectly well for many years, but if something goes awry you've got problems.[/quote]
Actually, all water moderated reactors [Boiling water, pressurized, CANDU....] have a strong negative feedback component. If the working fluid [water] inside the reactor core boils neutrons are no longer slowed to where they can be captured efficiently, halting the fission chain reaction.
Graphite moderated reactors [e.g. Chernobyl] can continue fissioning after the coolant boils away - one of their many disadvantages.
To a great extent, this is part of the basic design of water moderated reactors - if the moderator [water] has boiled away, the reaction _STOPS_.
What is left is the residual decay heat - not the fission chain reaction.
There has been extensive work on designs that are 'inherently safe' - capable of sealing with the residual decay heat without damage or intervention [human or mechanical]. The gas cooled 'pebble bed' reactors and the PIUS reactor concept [http://www.euronuclear.org/e-news/e-news-17/nps-kth.htm] are two examples.
Actually, Microsoft not IBM was the original source for the OS/2 2.0 development kit. IBM was working on OS/2 1.3.x and LAN Server
Back in 1989, the prices were $2600.00 for the OS/2 SDK, the Windows 2/286 SDK was only $200 or so [this was just before MS's developer subscriptions]. Most developers preferred the Borland tools to Microsoft compilers anyway.
While the core of the API [API names beginning with 'DOS'] was available, the UI [presentation manager] was unfinished - MS OS/2 2.x used the same UI as their OS/2 1.2.1 and Windows 2.x
For that matter, the Microsoft OS/2 3.0 NT project [later renamed to Windows NT 3.0] still used the same File Manager / Program Manager UI.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019