Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:And how many do they need? (Score 1) 97

It's users are arguably less technically savvy. Can you imagine the cost with establishing a secure 1 million user network, where Linux isn't an OS but more probably some disease that was eradicated back in the 1800s. Training would cost so god damn much, take a year or two. Sure, probably don't need IIS servers. But users need to be on Windows.

But every couple of years, MS hands out a perfect reason to convert: New versions.

The cost of retraining to use Windows 8 for example is probably going to be on par with retraining to use Ubuntu or Debian. It could probably even be reduced for Ubuntu or Debian by using a more windows 7 like GUI to help keep the environment as familiar as possible. Any organization that cites conversion retraining costs as their primary cost justification for staying with MS now is either lying (to cover a conflict of interest, bribe, etc...), or incompetent at doing cost analysis.

Comment: Re:Obviously (Score 1) 538

by geoskd (#47290553) Attached to: Teaching College Is No Longer a Middle Class Job

If that were true, tuition would be in free fall.

Not so long as the true costs are deferred until the consumer no longer has any choice in the matter. If you didn't have to pay the loans back if you couldn't find work in your field, then the cost would be in free fall because so many people wouldn't be required to pay back the loans.

Demand is kept artificially high by hiding the true cost, false advertising, and a corporate greed machine that is almost custom built to drive wages down, and job requirements up.

Comment: Type of applications (Score 1, Insightful) 466

by geoskd (#47240817) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Best Rapid Development Language To Learn Today?

It all depends on what kind of applications you need to write.

If you're looking to write back-end or network applications that do not require a GUI, then I would still recommend C++ with one caveat. Get and use the Boost libraries. You will find that these libraries fix most of the crap that was broken about C and C++. C++ is not necessarily the easiest language to use, but you already know it which is a tremendous advantage.

If you need to do front end / GUI development, I recommend JavaScript. Not because its easy to use, but because web browsers are everywhere, and largely platform agnostic at this point. There are plenty of systems out there that build on top of JavaScript, and any of them would be worth a look.

Comment: Re:IPv6 Addresses (Score 2) 305

by geoskd (#47226055) Attached to: When will large-scale IPv6 deployment happen?

Worse, when you change your password, and are told that the new password is unacceptable because it's too similar to your old password. That means that they're actually storing your password, and not a hash. And they think that's secure?

You might not have noticed, but password change utilities always require you to enter the old password as part of the change process. That means there is no need to store the old password for comparison, you have just entered it, and it can be discarded as soon as the comparison is done.

Comment: Re:IPv6 Addresses (Score 2) 305

by geoskd (#47225995) Attached to: When will large-scale IPv6 deployment happen?

This response always pisses me off. What do you do when DNS is broken? What do you do when you are the guy setting up DNS services? With IP 4 it is pretty easy to remember a 4 number string long enough to transpose some addresses. It is easy enough to remember a small handful of well known DNS servers' addresses so that you can get a machine talking on the Internet or on your local network. IP 6 has a short-hand notation, but it's still a pain. Looking at the example given, when transposing that address one has to hold in mind 5 sets of variable-length numbers (in Hexidecimal, no less) and remember the location for the double-colons.

Short answer: write it on a piece of scrap paper, or put it into a note on your tablet|phone|pda.

My god, are we so enamored of our technology that we have abandoned the pen and paper?

Comment: Re:Raise the Price (Score 1) 462

by geoskd (#47082465) Attached to: Fiat Chrysler CEO: Please Don't Buy Our Electric Car

But it is already expensive enough that it doesn't make a lot of sense to buy if you want to buy one to save money on gas. The price difference is $15350. If we assume $4/gal for gas, then that's 3837.5 gallons. Fiat 500 gas version gets 31mpg city, 40mpg highway. If we average that, then we get 136,231.25 miles before the price difference pays for itself. And that's assuming we paid cash for the car. If you finance it, then add interest on top of that.

The Gasoline price difference is only a part of the cost savings, and it isn't even the majority. The fact is that pure electric vehicles are much cheaper to maintain. They have no oil, so you can scratch off $200 / year in oil changes. There is no rotating alternator, no starter, of fuel pump, no oil pump, no water pump, No distributor cap. The single biggest difference is a lack of wear and tear on the brake pads. A *properly* built EV will have full regenerative braking which effectively prevents the driver from *ever* using the brake pads. (most EVs today do not have full regen braking, and instead use the brake pads part of the time. This is a result of incompetent design engineers who still do not understand electronics, and insist on a mechanical solution). A typical EV will go 5 years between maintenance visits. I have had mine for two, and the dealership offers "free oil changes for life" on all of their vehicles, So i take it to them once every three months, and they top the windshield wiper fluid and wash the car. Outside of that, there has been no maintenance at all since I bought the car, and the first sched maintenance (according to the factory) isn't until 100k miles when they will check the control diagnostics to see if everything has been running correctly. I get the brake pads every year at the cars inspection, and every year they comment that the brake pads look essentially brand new. They don't expect I will need new brake pads until somewhere well north of 100k miles.

At the end of the day, the cost for the first 5 years are a little cheaper for the gasoline car. You have $250/ month for car payments, plus $80-100ish for gas, plus $40-50/ month for maintenance (oil, brakes, etc.

The comparable EV will cost about $500 / month in payments, plus $25 / month in additional electric costs.

Total Gas: $370-$400 / month. Total Electric: $525-$530/month

After 5 years, the cost dynamic changes radically. The two car payments go to 0. The operating costs for the EV remain around the $25 / month in electric costs. The monthly cost for the gas vehicle actually go up. You still have $80-$100, and you still have the $40-$50 for regular maintenance, but now things start to break. You have an additional $100 / month for unexpected maintenance, (maybe twice a year, something like an alternator goes, costing $600, maybe you accidentally fry a brake rotor, so that $100 brake job now costs $500.

5 years to 10 years old: Gas car: $220 - $230 / month. EV: $25 / month

After 10 years, it gets truly ugly. The gas can now has major mechanical trouble on a regular basis. The total average monthly maintenance costs are up over $250 / month, and most people consider it cheaper to replace the vehicle. The EV on the other hand is still in perfect working order, and there is no particular reason it should have significant costs this decade. The only two parts to suffer any real wear and tear are the motor controller, and the motor itself, both of which if designed properly, for the EVs usage profile, should last many decades. The motor controller will eventually fail due to a phenomenon known as silicon fingers, but in large quantities motor controllers would be very cheap to build. ($300 or less, and it should be at least 2 decades before it fails.)

Comment: Re:So... (Score 1) 630

by geoskd (#46709471) Attached to: Navy Debuts New Railgun That Launches Shells at Mach 7

1/2mV.terminall^2 since 83 miles away we presume it will be on the downslope of a parabolic-ish arc. 23lb at 300mph - 10kg at 136m/s = 10 x 136^2 = 185kJ give or take. So about the same as a Toyota Yaris going 40mph or a Ford Focus going 35mph.

These things will be going much much faster than terminal velocity, even 100 miles downrange. They simply will not have enough time to slow down. The shuttle on re-entry came in basically belly-into-the-wind to bleed of energy as fast as it could, and it still took a half hour and 6,000 miles to bleed off all that energy.

This shot is designed to be stremlined, and will not bleed very much energy at all. I wouldn't be surprised if its still moving mach 6 when it gets to its target... Try redoing your calculations for 4,000 MPH, and see what you get.

Comment: Re:Distinguishing Science From Pseudoscience (Score 1) 470

by geoskd (#46669155) Attached to: It's Time To Bring Pseudoscience Into the Science Classroom

Please, name an established fact and explain how this differs from a normal fact.

Force equals mass times acceleration.

The equation yeilds accurate predictions for 100% of use cases where velocity is less than 0.01C, and distances are greater than 0.1 nm.

This fact differes from other facts becasue it involves a usefull method of predictiing behaviors of systems. It is verifiable, and falsifiable (although it has only been falsified for very high speeds where it is replaced by a more complicated set of equations, and very small distances where it is replaced by even more complicated equations). The point is that scientific facts are theroies that are overwhelmingly supported by evidence, and are falsifiable by nature. Much of the trouble people have understanding this concept stems from the unending stream of bullshit advertising they see on TV to the affect of "Our new dieting pull is scientifically proven to reduce your body mass index in just three minutes!", and other such nonsense.

Teaching critical thinking in school will only help so much because people inherently believe what they want to believe, even scientists. That is why there is so much faking of data in the science community. They are only human after all. A better solution would be a group who are granted the copyrights to most science related words like "scientifically", and "proves". This group could prevent most crap science just by suing advertisers out of existence who insist on improperly using these terms. After the media is forced to stop using the terms incorrectly, people will slowly stop using them incorrectly as well.

Comment: Re:day trader loses to second traders (Score 1) 246

So from whom is something being stolen, the one who offers to buy at $100 and receives $100? Or the one who offers to sell at $99.99 and receives $99.99? It seems by your definition all retailers are stealing from their customers.

The money is stolen from the second party.

The way it works is this. Party one offers the stocks for $99.99, but doesn't have the full amount of stocks that Party 2 wants to buy. Party 1 sells all of their stocks to Party 2 for $99.99, but the HFT intercepts the sale, and uses that information to buy shares from parties on other exchanges for $99.99, and then offers those shares to Party 2 at a slightly inflated price of $100.00. As the HFT has effectively depleted the stocks available, Party 2 has no choice but to buy from the HFT. The difference in price is within the margin, so Party 2 buys form the HFT never even knowing that they paid more for the stock than was originally asked, all Party 2 knows is that they offered $99.99, but that sale never completed, and the new price they could get was $100.00. The very act of offering $99.99 caused the price to change before the willing buyer at $99.99 and the willing seller at $99.99 could even complete the sale. All of this happens within fractions of a second.

The stock market only functions correctly when all parties have the same opportunity and access to the same information. When one party has access to information that no one else has, or can get, we call it insider trading, and the HFTs have created an artificial insider trading scenario. It is legal, but only just barely, and is still morally wrong. It adds nothing to the market, and unjustly enriches the HFT who provides no value added to the market.

Comment: Re:day trader loses to second traders (Score 3, Informative) 246

Any competent institutional broker has a wide variety of ways to defend its customers against that, all you need is a little time for their algorithms to work. If you don't have time, well, you pay the price just like any motivated seller.

The problem with dark pools, is that the customers need to be defended from their own broker. These trades happen so fast, and there is so much raw data out there that verifying that the price you got for your stocks was optimal is prohibitively time consuming, so no one double checks that their broker actually got the best price. The high frequency trading takes a very small amount from each trade (0.1% is the amount I saw in the article). Its small enought that it gets lost in thebackground noise of the market, but it is really no difference between this and stealing a penny every time someone withdraws money from an account. Stealing is stealing no matter how you dress it up, or pretend its for the good of "The Market".

Comment: Re:I am just simple. (Score 1) 148

by geoskd (#46614545) Attached to: Apple, Google Go On Trial For Wage Fixing On May 27

You would think more victims of our "justice system" with nothing left to lose would kill the judges and police responsible for ruining their lives.

That is a remarkably difficult thing to do once a person has been found guilty, and up until then there is hope that the "system" will work in their favor.

Besides, the world wouldn't really be better off with hardened crimninals going around killing police, prosecutors and judges. That just leads to more corruption, not less.

It is surely a great calamity for a human being to have no obsessions. - Robert Bly