Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:No soul (Score 2) 347

by celtic_hackr (#48665171) Attached to: Ars: Final Hobbit Movie Is 'Soulless End' To 'Flawed' Trilogy

Except he killed off Saruman at Orthanc, which pretty much excludes an actual Scouring of the Shire, which happened in fact in the book, but due to Sharkey's death at Orthanc, eliminates even an extended version addition. What Frodo saw in the Mirror was no the Scouring of the Shire, but the enslavement of the Shire by Sauron.

Two differnt things. Galadriel, "This is what will come to pass if you should fail."

A pretty accurate scene taken from the book.

Comment: Re:Second hand view from a teacher (Score 1) 347

by celtic_hackr (#48665113) Attached to: Ars: Final Hobbit Movie Is 'Soulless End' To 'Flawed' Trilogy

Damn! I should have read this review before I took a 10 year old child to see this, who totally loved all three movies. She also read the book.

First let's clear the air a bit. The Hobbit is 303 pages long. The three movies are split fairly evenly in thirds of the book chapter wise, not page wise. The third movie covers seven chapters out of nineteen.

A lot of good and bad stuff added in. A lot of good and boring stuff taken out. Darker. Everything is darker it seems these days (except maybe the Night at the Museum series, which isn't saying much.)

What is with the Damn Spice Worms and where the Hell is Atreides?

I'm a true fan, having first read these stories at around 10 myself.

The sound was so bad in this movie, I couldn't hear most of the conversations. I'm very hearing challenged, but had my aid in. I never have a problem hearing movies in a theater, with or without an aid. Well until now.

The HFR gave me motion sickness headaches.

Loved Thranduil's mount!

Strange scene with the dragon slaying. It was ok, I guess.

With all that he did, would it have killed him to have put the final scene from the book in?

One review I read was done by an infidel. Who would have picked on a scene with a Hobbit picking up stones and slaying orcs with perfect aim? Only one who didn't know much about Hobbits.

As disappointing as TLOTR was, but I still enjoyed some of it, as I did TLOTR. This last one needs a bit more time in the edit room to remove a bunch of stupid, wasteful scenes. Almost as disappointing as when he killed Saruman off at Orthanc. WHAT!? No Scouring of the Shire?!! Sacrilege.

This will eventually make a fairly decent 45 minute movie.

Comment: lmgtfy (Score 1) 420

Well, there's this old news.

lmgtfy

Then there is the XAML used for development now. Along that vein there is WPF, which is released in tandem with .Net, but is not actually .Net.

It may be they are not planning some new Next Big Thing, that will launch a whole new series of catch-up games like when they came out with .Net. However, I've been writing Windows applications since before the Windows 3.1 days, and have done my own share of following along as my code becomes obsolete as MS comes out with new development tools, and portation tools that simply don't work, requiring massive rewrites or writing new tools to do rewrites. Either way is a costly process. So, yes, I'm skeptical when Microsoft comes bringing Trojan Horse gifts.

It still is somewhat amazing to me, that time after time after time people fall for Microsoft promises and deals, only to find out too late, it was yet another Sun-Tzu Art of War trick. /.ers used to be smarter than this.

Comment: The 3 Es: Embrace, Extend, Exterminate (Score -1) 420

by celtic_hackr (#48644871) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Is an Open Source<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET Up To the Job?

Just the same Old Microsoft trying to do the same Old Thing.

First thing, MS has been planning to kill off .Net for years. They have something else planned for the future. A minimal amount of research should uncover that. So opensourcing something they are going to abandon is no harm to MS, but makes an excellent decoy. While everyone is chasing after the .Net OSS, Microsoft will again be leaving the rest of the community behind to play catch up with Microsoft's Next Big Thing.

Secondly, first learn the first thing.

I don't trust anythong Microsoft says. Why do you?

Comment: Re:Why this article should be ignored (Score 1) 350

by celtic_hackr (#48175977) Attached to: The Physics of Why Cold Fusion Isn't Real

Did you really just say all matter in the Universe is Hydrogen?

That's some powerful medication you're on. The Universe will eventually run out of hydrogen (not for a very long time of course, and our species may well be extinct by then, especially given our history and current course). True, we have Jupiter and can mine Jupiter for Hydrogen for a long time. But that means having an actual plan for expanding beyond Earth, and setting budgets to attain those goals. But as a means for say planetary power, we'll need to have a means of supplmenting our source. As a means of propulsion on say interstellar craft, we'd need to stop and "refuel", probably frequently, which might limit possible routes.

I'm not saying we shouldn' set goals to use Fusion power, but it's not a miracle pill, which many people seem to think it is. I'm just trying to set a more realistic tone. Every power source has trade-offs.

Comment: Re:Sorry that's not one of the feats of man... (Score 1, Informative) 350

by celtic_hackr (#48174533) Attached to: The Physics of Why Cold Fusion Isn't Real
Interesting, so you think a gas compound which forms a liquid is comparable to a metal compound which forms as a polymorphous solid? See, generally metals are considered to form alloys. Some alloys have special names like brass, bronze and steel. Aluminum oxide is about 52% aluminum. Malleable Iron is about 95% Iron. Now brass, is anywhere from 50% to 90% copper. An interesting thing is an alloy called Aluminum brass, where aluminum is used in the brass. The interesting thing is, it is used where corrosion resistant brass is needed, like at sea. It seems it forms a protective coating on the brass which is aluminum oxide and is transparent and self-healing. It is something that also forms on the surface of aluminum metal and that is why aluminum doesn't rust like iron. Oh, dear. That means that aluminum metal isn't aluminum either by your definition, because it is actually an alloy of aluminum oxide. At least on the surface. Maybe you should have gone beyond high school chemistry and studied materials science engineering in college, like I did.

Comment: Sorry that's not one of the feats of man... (Score 1) 350

by celtic_hackr (#48174161) Attached to: The Physics of Why Cold Fusion Isn't Real
Nature came up with transparent aluminum a long time ago. Most people just call it white sapphire. Now you can argue that sapphire, (aka aluminum oxide) is not aluminum, just like wrought iron, cast iron and iron oxide are not iron. There are several other iron alloys we still call iron, we just add qualifiers like "wrought", "cast", "gray", "white", etc. to indicate which alloy. Just like "transparent" is a qualifier to the aluminum alloy of aluminum oxide. So, while Star Trek made it famous and maybe gave it a new name, it is an accurate name. It is transparent and it is mostly aluminum by weight, and hence is an aluminum alloy now sometimes called "transparent aluminum". It was not invented by man, you can dig it out of the ground.

Comment: Why this article should be ignored (Score 1) 350

by celtic_hackr (#48174093) Attached to: The Physics of Why Cold Fusion Isn't Real

you'll have opened up an entire new source of clean, reliable, safe, renewable and abundant energy

I'd like to know how elemental hydrogen is a renewable source of energy. Sure you could rip apart the more complex elements that are the product of said fusion to make more hydrogen, but that's hardly what I consider "renewable".

As for the viability of cold fusion, it's a great software tool, but I don't think it's got much of a future as a solution for any energy crisis.

Lastly, you can't ever extract more energy than you put in. The fact we get energy out of fusion is because that energy is already packed in the element itself. All the elements have this capability, it's just that some elements are more ready to release the energy. Eventually you use up all the hydrogen and the other elements become progressively more difficult to extract the energy from. There is no miracle solution, except to be conservative with our use of energy.

Comment: Yes, they got /.ed and shut off comments (Score 1) 345

I don't think they were prepared for the response they got.

I don't know which is the more disturbing point.
1) Coming to the conclusion of removing support of an internally used format for external devices. A format most, or all, of the developers of 3rd party apps use.
or
2) Not being able to foresee the kind of reaction from the developer community, which any successful OS these days need.

No one ever considers the /. effect.

But Google/Chromium coders should have!

Disturbing on many levels.

Comment: Re:Yes, chromebooks are useful. But also annoying. (Score 2) 345

I disagree with your "might as well buy a real laptop" statement. I see nothing wrong with buying a $200 Chromebook and attaching an external drive, whether a $100-$200 SSD or a $70 TB HD. My Chromebook has a usb 3 port. Very handy for attaching external HDs/SSDs. My chromebook is the higher model @ $250.

I agree Chromebooks are useful. One thing is certain. I will definitely be forking the Chrome OS on any future chromes I might buy, to add back in support for ext2/3/4. Or I may buy a second one which still has the support. If some update comes down removing the support, I will simply "patch" it, to add it back in.

The warranty on the first one expires in a few months. I may just install Linux over it, and be done with it. The Chrome OS, does have just enough quirks that annoy me enough to switch it to Linux. Everyone in the house knows how to use Linux, but there will likely be performance penalties in switching.

Perhaps the best solution is to use a fork of ChromeOS.

Comment: That'd be a good point, except they had no Warrant (Score 1) 208

by celtic_hackr (#48103383) Attached to: Ross Ulbricht's Lawyer Says FBI's Hack of Silk Road Was "Criminal"

You're arguing a strawman argument, or rather a non-existent man argument. IF they had had a warrant, what they did would not be a problem. But they "hacked" into the server "exceeding authorized access" in violation of the CFAA WITHOUT A WARRANT. Hence it was a criminal act, by their own definition.

Now if you remove the CFAA, or clarify the law so it can't be misused to prosecute innocent uses, and uses that security professionals would normally use when looking for weaknesses in systems and not from a maliscious or criminal intent. Then what they did is probably ok. But as it stands now, what they did was criminal. It's a stupid, broken, clueless law, but it is the law and they would definitely prosecute someone for doing what they did.

No problem is so formidable that you can't just walk away from it. -- C. Schulz

Working...