Forgot your password?

Comment: Try SIGUCCS (Score 1) 131

by larkost (#47608087) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Good Technology Conferences To Attend?

As others have already said, the original question is really vague since there is little information about what corner of IT work will be done. But since it is at a college, there is a good chance that it will fall under the area that SIGUCCS conference tries to cover.

I went and presented 5 or 6 years ago and found it to be an OK conference. I did not get a lot out of it from the technical presentations, but it is a really good place to get an idea of what your peers are doing, and the "hallway track" is really good.

Comment: They are not a charity (Score 1) 228

by larkost (#47362617) Attached to: The New 501(c)(3) and the Future of Open Source In the US

My read of this is that they applied as a charity, but the IRS's definition of a charity requires that you be serving a distinct, disadvantaged group of people. A quick look at the software that Yorba produces (, does not lead me to believe that their software would particularly benefit any specific disadvantaged groups more than other people.

So by the rules that the IRS is working on, it does appear that they do not qualify as a charity. And to be honest, this is a correct definition, they are not running a charity. Now there is a valid question about whether there should be a method for them to run a non-profit without being taxes, but they are not a charity.

Comment: Re:Fucking Casuals. (Score 2) 303

by larkost (#46879007) Attached to: SEC Chair On HFT: 'The Markets Are Not Rigged'

The “within a few seconds of each other” shows that you have not really paid attention here. The problem is that if you are trying to place a single composite order on multiple markets. Unless you time your partial orders to arrive at their respective markets within 10 milliseconds or so, you will find that someone has magicallly swooped in to the markets that got your orders 20 miliseconds later than the others and bought what you were trying to buy and is now offering them for marginally more.

The way that they are doing this is by watching for your orders and predicting that you will go to other markets as well, and then having faster network routes than you can have to all of the markets. While this might not be illegal, it is copletely unfair. And more imporantly this means that people are making money from the markets (sucking money out) without providing anything like a benifit to the market as a whole.

Comment: Re:Are you kidding (Score 1) 818

by larkost (#46768297) Attached to: Study Finds US Is an Oligarchy, Not a Democracy

1) There is the nearly-stated assertion that teen pregnecy is on the rise. That is completly wrong, and tenn pregency in the US has been dropping for more than 20 years:

I don’t know of anywhere where teen pregnency has been glorified. So since you are wrong on the basic fact I am going to have to call your second assertion there false as well.

2) “Pro-Life is not about the life of hte baby”. You are correct that a fertilized cell is alive and the DNA is human, but the same can be said about the while blood cells in the vial of blood that gets drawn for testing. So that can’t possibly be the test to meet. The real argument here is at what point from fetalized cell to birth does that become worthy of the protections of being a “person”. And there is no clear test for that. The "ends a beating heart” type slogans sound great, but don’t have much actual content in them.

Comment: Re:Are you kidding (Score 1) 818

by larkost (#46768029) Attached to: Study Finds US Is an Oligarchy, Not a Democracy

Thank you for being clear about your belifs and views. I happen to disagree with you about a feterilized egg being deserving of the protections of a full person, but this is a clear disagreement rather than the messy one that most abortion debates fall into because both sides can’t recognize the true differences of opinion.

But I do have one quibble: it is not ‘life’ that is at debate here, it is personhood. After all, a tomato has ‘life’ but we don’t usually call the creation or eating of a BLT ‘murder’.

Comment: Re:Yes, quite the cautionary tale indeed. (Score 1) 249

by larkost (#46181093) Attached to: Wozniak To Apple: Consider Building an Android Phone

While your statement about Windows never shipping on a Mac is technically true, the "PC Compatibility Cards for Power Macintosh" cards came really close. They were basically most of a PC on a PCI card using a Pentium processor, so you could have a Windows machine running inside your PowerMac:

They came with DOS installed, so you had to instal your own copy of Windows.

Comment: Re:water in sci-fi plots (Score 1) 66

by larkost (#46039203) Attached to: Water Plume Detected At Dwarf Planet Ceres

You are absolutely correct about the water plots in sic-fi being entertaining, but not realistic. Visitors to our solar system would be far more likely either grab icy asteroids from the asteroid belt (lots of them, and they are not at the bottom of a gravity well), or collect hydrogen and oxygen from any one of many sources and make your own. Sucking water off even an undefended planet is unlikely to make sense form an energy perspective.

But on the defense side: anyone with enough technology/experience to be able to cross interstellar space with the idea of fetching something (as opposed to colonization, where a desperate enough group could wing it) would have enough technology to wipe us off the face of the planet so quickly that we would have no chance. But the human race being obliterated by orbital bombardment does not make for entertaining cinema.

Comment: Re:how would it work in the real world? (Score 2) 308

by larkost (#45656231) Attached to: Google's Plan To Kill the Corporate Network

You have this a little wrong. The cost of the computers is trivial in comparison to other things. What you are seeing is that the bean counters are focusing on reducing one specific cost (computer hardware) without taking other costs into consideration (employe productivity). Undoutably this is a case of “penny wise, pound foolish”, and is probably because no-one can write up the other costs into a spreadsheet, so the one number that is easy to define wins.

This is what is wrong with the “if you can measure it, you can mange it” mantra that business schools have been drumming into MBAs for a generation now.

Comment: Re:As an outsider. (Score 1) 559

by larkost (#45357227) Attached to: Official Resigns, Website Still a Disaster

How is the ACA/Obamacare price controlls? There are lots of bits to the law, but the two main parts of the law fall into three parts:

1) Setting up marketplaces with clearly defined levels of service (so all of the comparable plans have to meet minimum specs). This takes away much of the complexity that has meant that average people can better judge what they are getting (so adding clarity, which the theory of capitolism takes as an assumption).

2) Sets up a penalty for not having health care insurance. This is effctivly a requirement that everyone have health insurance.

3) Requiring that all plans (on the marketplaces or not) cover certain things (e.g.: pregnancy, or mental health) and bars health insurance providers from discriminating based on pre-existing conditions or certain other attributes (e.g: being a woman).

Nowhere here is there any price controls, rather it sets up a much more fair marketplace (i.e.: one more true to capitalist theory) than the deceptive an exclusionary one we have now.

And your “9% additional tax” number seems to come out of nowhere. Since you mention Texas, you are going to have to explain how having 1-in-3 Texans with NO insurance coverage (so effectively NO access to real healthcare) is anything like a good situation. Is it going to cost money to correct that? Yes absolutely, but how much more work is that going to allow people to do once they are not sick? Every company I have ever worked for has beat the drum that a helathy workforce is in the interest of the bottom line. Are you saying that Texas can’t figure that out?

Comment: Re:Common Core isn't all that bad (Score 1) 663

by larkost (#45312505) Attached to: A Math Test That's Rotten To the Common Core

Question #1 is not really asking for an opinion. It is asking that you evaluate the suggestions to see which is the best option. Given your sample story it is clear that the b) option is the correct one since it best summarizes the story. If your kid missed that question, then he/she is indeed missing the ability to evaluate the story. So the test seems to have done a good job corrctly evaluating your child.

Question #2 is indeed asking your child to come up with reasonable extensions on the story. They are expecting that your child not mearly comprehend the individual facts presented in the story, but have enough insight into what is going on to be able to extend it. Again if your child is incabable of doing this then the test has again correctly described the limits of your child’s abilites.

Both of these questions are exactly the sort of questions that should be on tests. They go beyond the wrote learning model, and test for true understanding, and even better: the second tests information sysnthisis. You should be celebrating a test that has accurately found a weakness in your child’s abilities, and working with your child to better develop these skills.

Comment: Re:"We believed we knew better what customers need (Score 1) 278

by larkost (#44997561) Attached to: How BlackBerry Blew It

BYOD may well be the number one headace for the CIO, but the "new shiny" that the CEO just bought and is demanding that the IT group support is why ActiveSync was such a great stroke: the CTO cound not say "that simply won't work". He/She tried explaining how much work it would be to validate and get working, but because it could not be a simple story it did not pass muster.

Comment: Re:Usable Fingerprint data? (Score 2) 303

Except thre was no GPS logging ever. What they actually found was iOS caching observed WiFi and Cell tower locations that had been near where you were in order to more quickly locate you when an applicaiton you ran requested that information. Your actual location was never recorded, but since much of the data was timestamped with when it was last verified some rough guesses on where you had been on what days was possible from the information.

So there never was "GPS logging" and the best accuracy you could have gotten from the data was that someone had probably been within 5-10 miles of a location within 3-4 days of a specific time.

Comment: Re:Developers Developers Developers! (Score 1) 93

by larkost (#44594407) Attached to: Chinese Developer To Build Ocean-Water Thermal Energy System

I have not read Tom Clancy's latest novels (the NetForce ones that he co-wrote turned me off), but all of my memories of his best characters have them going thorugh lots of training, with many of them being selected for "elite" units based on their performance in training exercises. He even shows those same characters continuing to practice their trade (e.g.: in Ranbow Force the show lots of time on the shooting ranges).

There is even a quote somewhere in one of the books (maybe Rainbow Force again) that goes something like "the way to make an elite unit is to tell the people they are an elite unit and give them the time and training to become one".

I see the Tom Clancy books that I have read to be the antithesis to most Anime, as well as most "young adult" fiction (e.g.: Harry Potter), as well as any SuperHero story.

Comment: Re:Article doesn't understand the point of patents (Score 5, Informative) 272

by larkost (#44284701) Attached to: How Intellectual Property Reinforces Inequality

The vast majority of the basic research into disesases is done in univesity labs, funded by government grants. Only when the results hint at commercial viability do businesses (often the reasearchers by leaving the university) then take over and commercialize the work. I am not saying that there is not a lot of effort still left to do, but in many cases the patents are mostly comming out of the early work, and are then blocking people from doing the commercialization work.

While the drug companies might spend a lot of money to do the final commercialization work, the vast majority of the development cost (lots and lots of dead ends) is born by the government. I am not arguing that that is not how it should be (that is how science gets done), but rather saying that it is silly to think that without patent protections that new things would not be discoverd.

The case at hand the company was trying to use teh cour system to prevent anyone from creating tests that looked for naturally occuring genes. They were not just blocking people from using the test method they developed, but from using any conceviable method of teting for those specific genes.

Try `stty 0' -- it works much better.