Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:hmmmm (Score 1) 314

One of the authors thinks the problem may have been due to a leak at a storage tank on the surface. Emphasis on the "may".

Plus there's the concentration issue - parts per trillion doesn't make for much of a problem in any case. Even the authors didn't make this out to be a health problem....

So you are saying it was a pretty balanced and non-alarmist report then. That still didn't stop the industry shills from attacking it with their over-the-top "fact..fact..fact" format.

Comment: Re:Moar Cloud (Score 1) 129

by Gadget_Guy (#49620395) Attached to: Microsoft Office 2016 Public Preview Released

I retract my original statement, and revise it to "Pivot tables became a lot more user-friendly in Excel 2007." Many users simply did not know the functionality was even there prior to that version.

I think that statement is also false. By "many users", you really just mean you.

Instead of Insert Ribbon->PivotTable in Excel 2013, the 2003 version used Data Menu->Pivot Table and Pivot Chart Report. Not really different at all.

Once you are in the function, the later version has a nicer interface, but the old one is still workable. I think the difference that you have found between the old and new version was that you had a need and an understanding of pivot tables as you matured and used Excel rather than any glaring deficiencies with the spreadsheet itself.

Comment: Re:Moar Cloud (Score 2) 129

by Gadget_Guy (#49616249) Attached to: Microsoft Office 2016 Public Preview Released

You're missing out on Excel pivot tables. That is one hell of a big selling point for versions >= 2007.

Microsoft Excel introduced pivot tables in version 5.0 released in 1995. So yes they do keep making improvements pivot tables in each version (up to and including Power Pivots as an add-on for 2010 and included in 2013), but no you do "miss out" on pivot tables at all.

Comment: Re:Chrome - the web browser that's added as bloatw (Score 1) 239

by Gadget_Guy (#49608199) Attached to: Chrome Passes 25% Market Share, IE and Firefox Slip

And yet for those people who don't know or care about that reputation, it is still the perfectly good browser as the OP said. It shows all the websites they want (so as far as they care it does adhere to the standards) and they are far more likely to get hacked due to social engineering than any browser hack.

Comment: Re:LOL! (Score 2) 124

by Gadget_Guy (#49499105) Attached to: Google Adds Handwriting Input To Android

The best part about Graffiti was that you didn't have to watch the screen while entering text. When I travelled across Europe by train, was able to look out the window and enjoy the scenery while I wrote my travel diary on my Pilot (actually a Handera TRGPro with a compact flash slot). I didn't have to move my hand like I would with a paper diary. I didn't have to key my eye on the screen for when I hit the wrong key or auto-correct decided to change what I meant to write. It was a very liberating experience.

Comment: Re:masdf (Score 5, Informative) 297

What is your evidence that he had mental problems?

Apparently you didn't comprehend the story either. According the TFA, he was "mentally ill and was acting strangely only days before his arrest, according to a Muslim cleric who said he was counseling him at the request of the FBI.". The cleric went on to say that "the agents told him that Booker suffered from bipolar disorder, characterized by unusual mood swings that can affect functioning."

So he had mental problems according to the FBI and the person that was counselling him.

Comment: Re:Beware Rust, Go, and D. (Score 1, Informative) 223

by Gadget_Guy (#49411123) Attached to: Mono 4 Released, First Version To Adopt Microsoft Code

Nope, but a person believing that Microsoft is more trustworthy than global community,

That is their opinion. It doesn't mean that they are a Microsoft shill as you claimed.

that .NET runtime is a silver bullet that will kill Ruby, Go and Rust

The AC didn't say .NET would kill those languages, just make them less useful.

person that keeps insisting that MS won't sue anyone over .NET despite the shady language in the license and a number of restrictions (.NET code can only be used to create a runtime adhering to MS specs and for no other purpose)

There is simply no shady language in the license that is going to affect Mono. If they ever decide to change Mono from an implementation of the .NET platform to something else (eg. JVM) whilst retaining Microsoft's code then they could be in trouble. But do really think for a second that they would change the focus of the project like that? Absolutely not.

And yet that is the main message of your post, that if you don't adhere to Microsoft's spec then they could sue. Well Mono is compliant with the licence, so they are not going to get sued.

Also, for this same time .NET has failed to see adoption the likes of Java did, and right now, Microsoft has even more hooks inside their license allowing them to sue the living hell out of anybody, and (Like with Oracle, Google and Java) they can sue if the code used in .NET will be used for anything other than making a fully fledged .NET runtime (that part is straight in their license, no guessing involved here).

So your response to me pointing out that Microsoft hasn't actually sued anyone for the last 13 years despite all the claims that they would is that Java is still bigger and that if you made something that was unlike Mono that you would get sued. How is that counter my claim that saying that using Mono will not get you sued?

Previous comment was regarding Microsoft and open-source in general - this is an answer in general. Commenter said he trusts Microsoft more than RedHat or opensource developers, I pointed out that trust is a personal issue, ability to verify - is more objective.

Irrelevant. You have the ability to verify code from an open source project.

Comment: Re:Beware Rust, Go, and D. (Score 1) 223

by Gadget_Guy (#49410941) Attached to: Mono 4 Released, First Version To Adopt Microsoft Code

What happened to the Slashdot I used to know? The old crowd is gone, replaced by young 'uns who spent their college years downloading 1000s of music files.

Thanks for calling me a young 'un. Nobody has done that to me in a very long time.

But I have to say that you sound like a leftover hippie from the 60s complaining that everyone who no longer believed in peace and free love had sold out, when in fact they had just grown up. Feel free to complain when Microsoft does something wrong. But after 13 years of predictions of a patent apocalypse, perhaps it is time to face the fact that they are not going to start suing the world for using Mono; especially when there has been cooperation between Mono and Microsoft during its development.

But maybe they still are.

And it all boils down to this. You have no proof in the slightest that they are doing anything wrong or that they intend to. But that doesn't stop the pitchforks coming out because of a feud that dates back decades. Have they done anticompetitive things in the past? Sure. Have they ever turned to litigation after making a public patent promise? No.

Having an open source implementation of .NET and C# legitimises the platform as the standard for Microsoft. They are not going to just turn around and crush it only to suffer a huge PR backlash because they broke their word. And of course, any judge would throw out a claim of patent infringement precisely because they had made public promises about not suing.

Comment: Re:Beware Rust, Go, and D. (Score 5, Insightful) 223

by Gadget_Guy (#49409507) Attached to: Mono 4 Released, First Version To Adopt Microsoft Code

You sir, are a great astroturfer and deserve a raise from MS.

That's really another type of FUD; that anyone who says something that isn't completely anti-Microsoft must be being paid to say it.

It has been 10 years since Mono was released and 13 years since .NET was released, and for the entire time there have been the predictions that Microsoft will start suing all and sundry for patent infringement. For that entire time it hasn't happened. For that entire time it has been complete FUD, whether you like it or not.

Well, just recently a very interesting article covering Microsoft "open source .NET" license, you should read up on that, especially MS requiring a license to the patents in the code you contribute, but refusing to grant you license for their code, instead, providing a promise not to sue.

So what? None of that means that Microsoft is going to start suing you for using the Mono CLR and Framework. If you don't like their terms then don't add your own patented code to a .NET Foundation-owned project, but feel free to use Mono without any fear of being sued by Microsoft.

If you really trust Microsot more than RedHat or opensource developers, than please, don't let anyone stand in your way, trust is a personal issue, some people trust ISIS, some - the supreme leader, but some prefer to be able to verify the code themselves, and Microsoft throwing their dying platform into opensource stream, hoping for a revival is very far from transparency and verifiability.

Wow, talk about FUD again. Bringing up ISIS is just a modern version of Godwin's law. And "some prefer to be able to verify the code themselves" is FUD because this is all about open source code released by Microsoft. Of course you can verify the code yourself. Or are you mixing up the completely unrelated non-OSS Windows code that you can't see. How is that relevant to this discussion?

Comment: Re:The future of console games (Score 1) 249

by Gadget_Guy (#49397677) Attached to: Sony Buys, Shuts Down OnLive

I don't know what the other poster's original point was, but I'm not going to join Steam on the off-chance that it might have a DRM-free version of the game I want.

Nobody has asked you to. This whole thread came about because someone said:

In order to play *any* game bought from Steam, the Steam client must be running and have an internet connection.

Comment: Re:Who cares? (Score 1) 249

by Gadget_Guy (#49396311) Attached to: Sony Buys, Shuts Down OnLive

Any PC that is powerful enough to decode 1080p video at 60fps is powerful enough to run a game on low settings.

Nobody is going to expect to be able to play at 60fps using this service. If high frame rate is that important to you then obviously have to upgrade your computer and play locally. If, however, you are happy to play games that you could not otherwise hope to play at half that rate (or even less) without having to buy a whole new computer then OnLive could provide a useful service.

The OnLive client required DirectX 9 level hardware, which is still the minimum requirement for most games, so whining about not meeting some shader spec for games is bullshit.

And yet by your own admission, DX9 is not the minimum requirement for all games. Therefore if you want to play a game for which you don't match the minimum requirement... Go on, guess what I'm going to say next! That's right, you could use a service like OnLive!

I'm sure that would have been awesome to play games optimised for a keyboard and mouse on a touchscreen.

Here we go again. You think that just because it might not work for 100% of games' user interfaces then the service is useless. Once again, you don't have to aim for perfection, just something that is good enough. And my point was not how well it work would on those devices, just that it can work on those low-powered CPU/GPUs (and therefore will also work on low-powered PCs too).

And someone can afford a super expensive Smart TV but they can't afford a slightly more expensive PC? Please.

Perhaps they want to be able to play in their living room without having to move their PC. Considering how often console gamers bring up this scenario, it seems to be a popular idea that PC games might like to share too.

Yes, I can for any reasonably aged computer. Of course you knew that, but you're being childish and pedantic.

That all hinges on your definition of reasonably aged. There are games that will not run at all on my computer that are being released right now. My Core2Duo with 2GB RAM and HD5750 video card running on a 32bit version of Windows just won't cope with modern games. It can stream video quite nicely though.

Who says the second person needs a PC? Maybe they are trying to watch a YouTube video on a $50 tablet.

Then you do what any household does that has multiple people sharing one Internet connection and figure it out. If you can do that, or if this imaginary other user doesn't actually exist, then there is nothing wrong with a system like OnLive.

Fuck, you're an idiot and your entire "argument" is complete shit.

And you call me childish? Your entire argument is that if it doesn't work in 100% of households for 100% of games running at a perfect 60fps then the system is useless. You are damning this service just by having unrealistic expectations.

So if you don't expect a service like OnLive to fulfill all your gaming needs (so you still play games locally if your system can handle it), and you wait to play your games when other people aren't trying to watch Youtube, and you don't mind a drop in frame rate and latency, then this system works. All your swearing and name calling will not change this fact.

Comment: Re:The future of console games (Score 4, Insightful) 249

by Gadget_Guy (#49396225) Attached to: Sony Buys, Shuts Down OnLive

Most of those titles can be bought on anyhow.

I just checked the first batch of games up to the letter B. Only 7 out of 42 games are available on GOG. That is nowhere near the definition of the word most.

Be that as it may, that wasn't what the original discussion was about. The question was whether you can play any games without launching the Steam client, not whether you can buy DRM-free versions of games on other sites. Changing the argument after being proven wrong is called shifting the goalposts.

If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my shoulders. -- Hal Abelson