Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Here it is! (Score 1) 340

by Ol Olsoc (#48907449) Attached to: Windows 10: Charms Bar Removed, No Start Screen For Desktops

Your sig: "To a coward, courage always looks like stupidity." First of all, that's a cool sig. Second, what does it imply about us Slashdotters, when we mainly think Win 8 and Win 10 UI's are stupid?

It was just a happy coincidence!

But wait. I have to think about this a minute. I hate W8 with a passion, but does that mean Microsoft was courageous> oh, , um, er.

Comment: Re: We Really Don't (Score 1) 146

by Ol Olsoc (#48907367) Attached to: How Do We Know the Timeline of the Universe?

the problem is, most of the physics we know is just theories based on theories based on hypotheses. its one big circle jerk.

so your taking mostly scewed data

You have that wrong data?

Physics and especially cosmology, do not spring forth like Venus fully formed from the waves. So yes, we go through a transition from less right to more right. And the wrong ideas are not even bad, they just let us know what doesn't work.

A lot of old theories, like Phlogiston, Celestial Spheres, flat earth were proven wrong. It just means they were wrong, not that anything and everything that came after them is wrong.

And even if a theory is wrong, it serves as a platform for further investigation. Plato's myth of Er. Pythagorean astronomical system. Once upon a time, it was postulated that the sun was a huge lump of coal. Big bang largely supplanted steady state, and we have a few real oddballs out there, like some of the string theory. Right? Wrong? Maybe, maybe not. But we learn, we move on.

You find it weird, a lot of us find it exciting. But it takes discussion and thought , not merely this bit of genius:

fuck your guesses and hypothesis. i want to see proofs.

Are you prepared to learn? Understanding does not come in a happy meal at McDonald's, or in a Bill O'Reilly program, the man who doesn't think anyone understands the tides. At some point, It doesn't matter what he or you think. If you feel strongly enough that present day knowledge is incorrect, prove it wrong. Thanks for playing.

Comment: Re:Terrible names (Score 2) 340

by Ol Olsoc (#48906687) Attached to: Windows 10: Charms Bar Removed, No Start Screen For Desktops

I don't care what they call it. But I just want the ability to drill down to find my feature.

Yes. I always liked to go through every menu to look at what is there. Drilling is a fine way to do this without actually performing the function. It also tends to allow me to figure out where things are when something new comes up, and I need to find something, because... hey, I know where that menu function is!

Comment: Re:Terrible names (Score 2) 340

by Ol Olsoc (#48906617) Attached to: Windows 10: Charms Bar Removed, No Start Screen For Desktops

Charms bar? Continuum?

It's the new "Dude, Where's My Car?" Operating system design methodology. You'll have to guys pop up in leather jumpsuits asking if you have your Continuum Transfunctioner? They had thought about using "Chinese Food" as a menu but it would be nested too deeply with infinite "and then" sub-menus.

Silly goose! The continuum Transfunctionator is alway, always, right beside the wobbulator snubber. Anywhere else, and you'll get a data frap that will cause your facebook to splooge.

Makes a hell of a mess on the touchscreen.

Comment: Re:How does Microsoft test with USERS? (Score 1) 340

by Ol Olsoc (#48906571) Attached to: Windows 10: Charms Bar Removed, No Start Screen For Desktops

I understand the appeal of having one OS and UI for all devices but a Phone isn't a Tablet which isn't a laptop which isn't a desktop which isn't a server. And if you're a developer, requiring a touch screen hurts your productivity.


The appeal pretty much fails in real life, don't you think? It's more like the feature creep in software. Reviewers can rhapsodize about the 20 new features in say, Windows office, where something no one ever uses is become a big deal in a review.

It just seems like soundbite mentality to talk about one interface to fit them all. And yeah, I can see touchscreen capability in some programs to be seriously useless.

I also wonder if developers are going to be hit by the separate version of Windows 10 for smaller tablets.

And really, isn't separate versions of Windows by screen size sort of proving that "one interface to rule them all" just doesn't work?

Comment: Re:We Really Don't (Score 4, Insightful) 146

by Ol Olsoc (#48904499) Attached to: How Do We Know the Timeline of the Universe?

The thing is our knowledge of the universe is so infinitesimally small that really it would be far fairer to call it a guess than a Hypothesis.

How do you know it is "infinitesimally small"?

That's sound bite cosmology. We don't ever know what we don't know.

The idea that there are certain types of stars that have certain compositions, and certain sizes and will likely have a lifespan of a certain number of years is a theory that has worked pretty well. We add to it when we find something that doesn't quite fit, and we modify to it as needed. Wanna see scientists get excited? When something doesn't fit, and they have to go back to figure out why. That's a happy scientist. Wouldn't be a happy politician or theologian though

But we do know some things about the universe. We'll never know it all, thank goodness, but a lot of physics pieces are falling into place.

Comment: Re:We Really Don't (Score 2) 146

by Ol Olsoc (#48904383) Attached to: How Do We Know the Timeline of the Universe?

It really doesn't.

A hypothesis has to make sense, has to be based on observation and/or our best current knowledge of the subject matter. Ideally it is testable somehow, even if only mathematically or theoretically.

A guess doesn't have to have any of those constraints. "Aliens did it" is a guess, but it's not a hypothesis.

Your statement should be embroidered, hung on the wall, and required reading before anyone is allowed to post on matters of science.

Way too many people, here and elsewhere, seem to have the idea that observation is somehow not a part of science. It is how we get some of these asinine statements of evolution not being science, or weather change not being science. And cosmology is probably not science in their view then.

Science is not simply Theory, Hypothesis, testing, confirmation or rejection.

Observation, description, comparing, and classification are all in there too. We'll probably never be able to land onto a star, but we can make seriously good observations about what is going on in them. All based on physics that we know

Comment: Re:The Bell Telephone: Patent Nonsense? (Score 3, Funny) 51

by Ol Olsoc (#48900981) Attached to: A Call That Made History, 100 Years Ago Today

"On May 22, 1886 .. Zenas F. Wilber, a former Washington patent examiner, swore in an affidavit that he'd been bribed by an attorney for Alexander Graham Bell to award Bell the patent for the telephone over a rival inventor, Elisha Gray, who'd filed a patent document on the same day as Bell in 1876." ref Bell's telephone sketch Elisha Gray's sketch of a telephone

You have to admit, both of thoes were pretty sketchy.

Comment: Re:A garland of pickled ringpieces. (Score 1) 144

Cross platform? They haven't even solved cross version. People used to give me Word 2007 docs to correct. I had Word 2003. After two attempts I started asking for a hard copy that I'd scrawl on with a pen.

Adobe is known for that crap also.

Perhaps the Open Offices are more compatible with Office than Office is itself, looking at it again?

Comment: Re:Internet Explorer (Score 1) 98

But IT is just a cost center right?

And that sums it up perfectly.

It's easy for people to bitch about IE6 and old software, but try to get money to update, and see how far that gets us.

Don't worry though, when the shit hits the fan, those same people that won't fund it will find a way to blame you.

Comment: Re:Not a college kid (Score 1) 368

by Ol Olsoc (#48895839) Attached to: Behind the MOOC Harassment Charges That Stunned MIT

You cite appearance and then specify ACTIONS that she's performed (peck on the cheek?). You're an idiot. As soon as she's interacted in a positive manner with the other party in question she's pushed towards a decision tree that could end up at sex, or nothing at all. The devil is in the details and the subsequent interactions.

And you are insane. I have female friends who I hug, kiss, and a few who enjoy goosing me on occasion. It's never been an invitation to have sex with them. We're like - friends and stuff.

Do you fall in love with the waitress at restaurants you go to if they smile at you?

And I gotta tell ya Sparky, you do not interact with the ladies as if they were some sort of decision tree. They are actually human beings, just like you, only with some differences. You really sound like a desperate sort of fellow, with every interaction between you and women as some sort of game where you see every move as a way to get some action.

Maybe you are not insane, just hopelessly pathetic.

SCCS, the source motel! Programs check in and never check out! -- Ken Thompson