Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Top 10 Suggestions Migrating to a Tablet (Score 3, Informative) 142

by MatthiasF (#47373073) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Replacing Paper With Tablets For Design Meetings?

1. Create an intranet for collaboration. There are numerous open source projects and proprietary products that can make collaborating between tablets very easy. Some allow easy customization to generation tracking or forms systems to allow you to process and share data instead of using spreadsheet or word processing applications.

2. Make sure you have a nice stylus with palm recognition and pressure sensitivity. Adonit's products for iPad, Samsung or Microsoft's own products are great as well.

3. Use Screenleap to share a desktop with several tablets. It has HTML5 support, is pretty cheap (pay as you go) and very well made API if you want to integrate it with your intranet.

4. Stick to open standards. Use established Internet standards like HTML5, PNG or SIP, and not browser-specific features or plugins, WebM or WebRTC.

5. Do not use a program like Evernote or OneNote, when you can just as easily use iOS or Android's built in handwriting systems to just insert text into documents or web-forms.

6. Buy plenty of power chargers.

7. Invest in wireless access points that allow for two gigabit up-links so you can take full advantage of 802.11ac. Max theoretical speed is around 7 Gbits.

8. Do not buy the cell modem version of a tablet unless you are off-site constantly or have a lot of transmissions when off-site. Otherwise, rely on smartphone data sharing, shared mobile hotspot devices or local wireless.

9. Make sure any design/paint/doodling app you decide to standardize on has versioning built-in so you can easily undo mistakes, because you will be making a lot of mistakes.

10. Recognize that the first six months will most likely be frustrating, but by month five you will be working as fast as paper and after month six you will be saving time.

Comment: He is right...but (Score 1) 270

He isn't taking the regulation far enough.

We should not only enforce fair pricing on interconnects (perhaps even require public data on them) but we should also be demanding that Quality of Service (QOS) is honored from end to end.

There are numerous applications that are running across the Internet today that require higher QOS levels but the priority gets dropped 2-3 hops out so they can only be run on local LANs or private WANs.

Comment: Re:No, we don't (Score 3, Insightful) 309

by MatthiasF (#47221565) Attached to: Google Engineer: We Need More Web Programming Languages
A Google engineer that designed a web language no one wants to use much less need, gives a talk about how the web needs more languages.

Part of me wants to think the guy is just nuts but this is starting to seem like a trend from Google.

They try to create a many options/products as possible to weaken established standards and then take them over with half-assed efforts that never work out.

Comment: Particles are more unique than thought (Score -1, Troll) 62

by MatthiasF (#47168287) Attached to: Lepton Universality In Question, a Standard Model Assumption
I know most people think of molecules, atoms, nucleus, neutrons, quarks, leptons, etc., are all precisely the same across all similar items. But they are not.

Two hydrogen atoms are completely unique to one another but it is harder to measure the differences than larger items because of the difference in scale and since they both generally behave the same way no on cares to explore their uniqueness until the difference is noticeable and worth exploration.

We know this to be true because nothing can be perfectly split and if nothing can be perfectly split then there cannot be two particles that are exactly the same. If a single particle cannot be split into two equal particles, then no two combination of particles can produce the same unique item again. Therefore, all particles must be truly and absolutely unique in some fashion.

So, the idea that contrary leptons can be symmetric is absurd.

Comment: Re:IE's release model is failing (Score 1) 173

Because I want the web to be a real application platform so I can develop things that run on any device. Google and Mozilla are committed to making that a reality, but Microsoft isn't because they provide a large application platform themselves in the form of Windows.

Not everything should or needs to be done in a single application. The idea of creating a monolithic platform is a wonderful idea, but ONLY if it confirms strictly to a set of standards AND is secure. The more "features" you add, the harder it is to keep secure and the farther you deviate from the standards, so it is counter-productive.

Then why are Chrome and Firefox more compatible with each other than Internet Explorer is with any of them?

Because Firefox makes most of it's money from Google and since Google ignores the need for a standard, they are essentially bullying everyone into accepting their "features" or a huge portion of the web will stop working in your browser (happened for Chrome twice, IE four times, Netscape twice as well, so everyone is at fault).

That ship has long left the harbour. HTML5 is a reality and it has been for quite some time now. Whatever the W3C decides to do isn't really relevant as long as the browser vendors are on the same page. The W3C could have had a nice role in this, but they're just too slow and overly bureaucratic to keep up with what is going on in the real world.

W3C had a huge role in HTML5 and what they ratify will be the standard. If a browser goes beyond that standard, they should be severely punished by the web community as Microsoft has been because of their deviations in Internet Explorer 5 and 6. But now that Microsoft is sticking to standards, after either realizing their error or conforming finally, they seem to be the ones keeping the other browsers (and developers) from going off the deep end.

Comment: Re:IE's release model is failing (Score 1) 173

Why are "new features" so important to you? It is a web browser. It's not suppose to change drastically or it causes standards problems.

You know, standards problems like Chrome has caused over the last decade. Tossing out new features, only present in one browser and not officially determined to be a standard, is not helping the Internet.

If Microsoft is seen as dragging it's feet, it's because they only enact what is officially a standard. To put things in perspective, HTML5 is still not ratified with W3C yet. Internet Explorer did not roll-out HTML5 until it reached Draft Recommended status, which in my opinion is the prudent thing to do

And if you had not a history lesson of the mistakes of HTML past, numerous standards today were not allowed to be thought out because one side or another forced it down everyone's throats. Most of those poorly-thought-out and bullied standards are what are holding us back now.

Comment: Re:I agree... (Score 1) 422

by MatthiasF (#47120057) Attached to: Why You Shouldn't Use Spreadsheets For Important Work
No, it is not necessary. You can label ranges in spreadsheets and run code against them without the functions being intermingled. Most of the spreadsheet software has had this ability for at least fifteen years.

In my opinion this actually can make spreadsheets more correct, since you can share the spreadsheet easily and even watch the data as it is being manipulated by formulas, whereas most proprietary programs only give you the ending output. You can run different functions against the same ranges, direct their output to different sheets, etc.

There are a lot of options when it comes to modern spreadsheet software.

Comment: I agree... (Score 1) 422

by MatthiasF (#47103815) Attached to: Why You Shouldn't Use Spreadsheets For Important Work
I agree, a well made spreadsheet is far easier to follow than a proprietary program or even most study's results.

If you have a custom formula in a spreadsheet, create it in the program's scripting language instead of copy/pasting to tons of cells. Create the spreadsheet in a repeatable layout that is ease to understand the sections and the flow of the data.

I do not see how that is any different than using a proprietary program. At least with a spreadsheet you can look directly at the code for errors. In a proprietary program, you would need to learn what the behavior of the libraries or the specific nomenclature that is typically not always standardized.

The entire article reads more like a "why don't people use what I use" argument and not a reasonable critique.

Comment: Re:So was it a bad idea to introduce PNG beside GI (Score 0) 220

by MatthiasF (#47100759) Attached to: PHK: HTTP 2.0 Should Be Scrapped
PNG was created for the greater good by committee and approved as a standard by the IETF, so no, it is nothing like WebM.

PNG was designed as patent free so there was never any treat of being sued if you used it.

Meanwhile, Google holds all of the patents for WebM and WebRTC. They have not released them to the public domain, so it is a power play and not a standard meant to improve the overall situation.

There is a huge difference between "royalty free" and "patent free". The former just means the guy with the club isn't demanding a toll today, while the latter means no one will ever get clubbed period.

Comment: Re:Death by Committee (Score 3, Insightful) 220

by MatthiasF (#47097151) Attached to: PHK: HTTP 2.0 Should Be Scrapped
Bullshit. BULLSHIT!

Google has derailed so much of the web's evolution in an attempt to control it that they do not have the right for them or any Google lover to suggest they get to the web's standards from committees. From the "development" trees in Chrome, to WebRT and WebM, they have splintered the internet numerous times with no advantage to the greater good.

The committee was strong armed into considering SPDY simply because they knew Google could force it down everyone's throats with their monopoly powers across numerous industries (search, advertising, email, hosting, android, etc.). HTTP/1.1 has worked well for the web. The internet has not had any issues in the last 22 years except when assholes like Google and Microsoft decided to deviate from a centralized standard.

There is no way we should let Google set ANY standard after the numerous abuses they have done over the last 8 years, nor should any shills like you be allowed to suggest they should be the one calling the shots.

So, kindly go to hell.

This is the theory that Jack built. This is the flaw that lay in the theory that Jack built. This is the palpable verbal haze that hid the flaw that lay in...

Working...