Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:So, like all other rewards programmes? (Score 1) 52

by evilviper (#47520833) Attached to: Verizon's Offer: Let Us Track You, Get Free Stuff

I'm wondering WHY they're asking for permission. Seems ludicrous to do so when everyone's already giving it up for free. Making it legit?

They're collecting all that information, but they have to keep it under wraps. They have to get permission, like this, to be able to release (sell) all your vital information to 3rd parties.

The public and our representatives don't care about privacy, much. But after the free-for-all is on for a while, one case will break-through in the media... Something about a violent criminal buying the information from Verizon, using it to figure out exactly when little Jill comes home from school every day, and how long she's there by herself before her parents get home. When cases like that get publicized, then in a sudden tidal wave of popular think-of-the-children support, we get a bunch of privacy laws passed.

Comment: Re:Pft (Score 1) 860

by evilviper (#47520265) Attached to: The Daily Harassment of Women In the Game Industry

for soldiers one would expect long endurance would be a plus. Ultrarunning is something where men and women appear to compete on a somewhat even footing.

Women are nearly competitive with men at long-distance running only because of their lower weight. Once they are outfitted with 100lbs of gear (which firefighters and soldiers are), they suddenly and dramatically lose their parity with men.

Comment: Re:Time to get rid of inverters (isn't it?) (Score 1) 239

by evilviper (#47519401) Attached to: Google Offers a Million Bucks For a Better Inverter

Assuming that our DC sources of electricity are already somewhat efficient, why don't we just have other things that use that current be DC as well?

It's not AC vs DC. Somewhere along the way, your input voltage won't match your output voltage, and conversion is needed. That voltage conversion is where the expensive equipment and losses come in. Adding a DC to AC step in there, adds very nominal losses to above voltage conversion step.

Since the world standardized on AC power over a century ago, it's as good of an output option as any other.

Comment: Re:240V is fairly common (Score 1) 239

by evilviper (#47519299) Attached to: Google Offers a Million Bucks For a Better Inverter

resistance loss is a serious issue even for the short runs within a building - so you may still see 110V at the socket, even if it's supposed to be 120V.

Not true. You're vastly more likely to see 130V at a socket, than ever seeing one at or below 110V. That's the actual voltage delivered near the electrical box, dropping down to 125V or so, after it has been run across a building. Rough-service bulbs in the US are designed and rated for 130V instead of 120V for just this reason... A 120V incandescent light very near an electric box can have a rather short life-span.

+ - Microsoft to Finally Pull the Plug on Windows RT

Submitted by Deathspawner
Deathspawner (1037894) writes "A lot of people have never been able to understand the logic behind Microsoft's Windows RT, with many urging the company to kill it off so that it can focus on more important products, like the mainline Windows. Well, this is probably not going to come as a huge surprise, especially in light of mass layoffs announced last week, but Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella has said that his company will be working to combine all Windows versions into a unified release by next year."

+ - MS squeezing SQL Server customers on licensing->

Submitted by yuhong
yuhong (1378501) writes ""Microsoft's SQL Server business has hit the $5 billion mark in terms of annual revenue and is growing like gangbusters, according to CEO Satya Nadella. " What Satya did not mention is where this revenue comes from. According to an article from CRN, "Licensing experts believe this stunning figure is primarily due to the company raising prices last summer for many of its enterprise products [such as SQL Server].""
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Advanced? (Score 1) 68

by UnknownSoldier (#47518645) Attached to: Finding Life In Space By Looking For Extraterrestrial Pollution

Exactly. This human myopic assumptions are purely asinine at times. (Just like Scientists assume the Laws of Physics are constant for the universe based purely on visual data which has huge margins of error.)

Other stupid assumptions: Assuming life favors a single-star system when in reality it favors a twin-star system.

Earth is the anomaly here; NOT the norm.

Comment: Re:Trusting a binary from Cisco (Score 1) 171

by HiThere (#47518535) Attached to: Firefox 33 Integrates Cisco's OpenH264

I don't think you understand "trusting trust". If you have the binary, and you are verifying it. that's not the same process at all.

However, no, you can't trust it. It's not because you can't verify it, it's because you can't do it without violating their patents. Also because it's quite difficult to verify large code bases. But if I understand things correctly, even to translate the binary into assembler code would violate their patent.

P.S.: Trusting trust was about a compiler that compiled itself. And it showed that no source code inspection could reveal the inserted trojan, because the compiler binary would insert it even though it wasn't in the source code. That would be analogous if this were a code compiler that compiled itself.

Comment: Re:Cost Seems Low (Score 1) 191

by HiThere (#47518487) Attached to: China Plans Particle Colliders That Would Dwarf CERN's LHC

OK, so the first LHC cost $9billion. How much would the second one cost? I'd bet a LOT less.

OTOH, this IS a new project, not a second LHC. That probably means that they'll run into new and unexpected problems. So the estimate is almost certainly wrong, and on the low end. (Not certainly. China's been doing some work with large 3D printers that print buildings, and, I believe, also tunnel construction machinery. And almost certainly on things I haven't heard about.)

But, yeah, my guess is that the price is lowballed. This is true for most construction projects, and is NOT something special to China. If they bring it in on or under budget, THAT will be special to China.

Comment: Re:Suboptimal Design (Score 1) 191

by HiThere (#47518425) Attached to: China Plans Particle Colliders That Would Dwarf CERN's LHC

With a really large ring doesn't bremstrallung become less of a problem? And for protons that shouldn't be a problem at all.

IIRC, when the Stanford Linear Accelerator was built there were comments to the effect than a longer one would always be impractical. This is clearly incorrect, as if one were built in space there wouldn't be any curvature problems, but it may inidcate that there are severe problems with building a longer one in a strong gravitational field.

Computers are unreliable, but humans are even more unreliable. Any system which depends on human reliability is unreliable. -- Gilb