Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:How long before the FAA stops this? (Score 3, Interesting) 26

by mysidia (#46803253) Attached to: Drones On Demand

Which effectively kills the FAA's regulations that said commercial drone use in the US was illegal.

No it doesn't. The ruling affects the case at hand only -- not precedent-setting, and the matter is still under dispute with the FAA appealing.

It is quite possible the FAA could kill this company and apply some severe penalties.

Comment: Re:Don't tell them that... (Score 1) 209

by mysidia (#46803027) Attached to: Why Portland Should Have Kept Its Water, Urine and All

I imagine they at least run it through a filter before it hits the pipes.

I believe so. The water needs to be enclosed before they can test that the water is in compliant with state and federal standards: I am pretty sure, they must be doing something else... or the people in the area are already at risk (Not from Urine, from lax water safety standards).

The reservoir is "open" and accessible to animals such as birds who can deposit feces containing pathogens such as cryptosporidium: which form oocysts (spores) that can pass through a number of types of filters and survive in high-chlorine (and otherwise chemically treated) waters.

Therefore... they need to either be doing UV or ozone treatment after pulling water from the reservoir, or using a membrane/diatomaceous earth/slow sand filter to successfully filter out most crypto s..

I wonder if this incident shouldn't raise alarm bells, that the post-reservoir treatment is ineffective, and members of the public might be endangered if an infected bird shits in the lake!

Comment: Re:Good. (Score 1) 145

by mysidia (#46802711) Attached to: New 'Google' For the Dark Web Makes Buying Dope and Guns Easy

Otherwise it would be kinda useless, since to use it you would have to have contact with other users which is risky.

Because it's incredibly easy to distribute physical contraband without making contact with your users, or risking revealing your identity or your user's identity: in case either buyer or seller is actually a LEO or hired informant?

Comment: Re:Don't tell them that... (Score 1) 209

by mysidia (#46801503) Attached to: Why Portland Should Have Kept Its Water, Urine and All

Actually, Portland doesnt treat its water after this resivour. This doesnt imply that I agree with their decision.

In other words... the water already has enough chemicals in it that nothing will grow.

They still gotta do something to keep the turbidity down, from dirty in the reservoir... however....

Comment: Re:I am all for this research (Score 2) 62

If the chance of it happening is .5% per year, then it not happening for 200 years means the probability of the event next year is *still .5%*.

No. That's not true. That requires making an unwarranted assumption of independence. You are assuming that the passage of time is independent w.r.t. the solar activity.

You are essentially assuming is true that is something already known to be totally false.

Just because you haven't won lotto for the last 100 years does not make you more likely to win lotto this week because your "overdue".

A carrington event is not a lottery win.

Astrological events are cyclical.

There is not a probability that this event will happen selected by random chance. It's essentially certainty that this event will happen.

Comment: I am all for this research (Score 0) 62

This could save billions of people. And it's one kind of threat -- that in principle: we should be able to see coming, if we are just looking

We could also do well to have solar flare early warning and harden the power grid against the next Carrington event; which is overdue and expected every couple hundred years.

However.... what happens when there is an Asteroid that will threaten earth... in between the time the telescope is developed, but before the asteroid diversion tech is developed?

Comment: Re:But do you want it? (Score 3, Insightful) 49

by mysidia (#46793213) Attached to: Bookies Predict the Future of Tech

you don't "help" a company or technology by buying their stock since the said stock is owned by some other dude and the sale does not bring a single more dollar to the company

This is not quite true. Most companies dilute their stock regularly, to compensate management and founders with stock or option grants.

The collection of buyers of those shares set the price for the stock -- which is ultimately being used to provide the company's equity financing.

Now it's true if you bought a share of stock for $1000.... well it's not $1000 that goes directly or indirectly to the company.

But you are trading places with someone who ultimately up the chain bought into their offering.

In the event the buying volume ran out... the stock price could easily fall by a few %. Even a $0.01 price decrease is significant.

So it's not that you aren' "giving" to the company --- it's just that the relative proportions of what you are giving are probably very very small, for a multi-billion$$ company.

Comment: Re:But do you want it? (Score 1) 49

by mysidia (#46793193) Attached to: Bookies Predict the Future of Tech

What is very disappointing is the heavyhanded regulators have blocked this kind of market in the US, the supposed "land of the free"? What happened to our economic freedom??

Indeed. If you stand to lose financially -- in case the technology DOES succeed, then you could make a Bet that it will succeed, in order to offset your losses.

If the technology succeeds, you win your bet, AND your winnings offset the financial harm. If the technology doesn't succeed, then you lose your bet, BUT you are not financially harmed.

Investing would help finance its success, which you definitely don't want.

Instead... in the US you are banned from placing the bet. So you can't protect yourself --- except from a narrow band of risks by purchasing insurance :-(

Comment: Re:Step 2. (Score 1) 216

by mysidia (#46792915) Attached to: MIT Designs Tsunami Proof Floating Nuclear Reactor

"Naah...How about we build a huge floating light water reactor out in the ocean?"

So say the government and the regulators who only recognize the existence of one kind of reactor operation.

So say the companies that produce power from coal, whose vitality would be threatened by a cheaper abundant power source. So say the companies heavily fested in uranium-fed solid-fuel water-cooled reactors.... and manufacturers that also are in the business of manufacturing the uranium fuels for traditional nuclear reactors.

Comment: This is what you call an arrogant analysis (Score 1) 149

by mysidia (#46790965) Attached to: Investors Value Yahoo's Core Business At Less Than $0

What the market is essentially saying is they don't agree with Bloomberg analyst's or others' evaluation of the value of these other companies. The natural conclusion is the market says THE ANALYSTS ARE WRONG in their estimates of the worth of Yahoo Japan/Alibaba.

It is the analysts, not the public that assume it is the US portion of Yahoo's operations that are being valued at $0.

By the way.... just because some Alibaba stock or some Yahoo Japan stock is available on other exchanges at a certain price; does not mean the entire company is valued at the current marginal price of stock trades. That is a form of extrapolation which is subject to large errors. The market valuation of Yahoo US based on price of individual shares is also an extrapolation.

One should not assume that all the outstanding shares in Yahoo are available for the same price, to an investor possessing current marginal trading price in $ per share times number of shares, in cash.

That doesn't really tell you what the market will value the company at, perhaps as a rough estimate with errors between 10x and 100x.

It is just the analyst/reporter's underhanded way of saying -- since we're infallible about the proper valuation of these quickly growing portions, and nobody else could possibly ever see any differently ----- any difference in US stock price must be attributed to negative value from the slower growing portion of the business.

Maybe it's just that their other non-US operations are being assigned a discount, for various reasons, below what the analyst wants to value them at.

Comment: Re:Step 2. (Score 1) 216

by mysidia (#46786341) Attached to: MIT Designs Tsunami Proof Floating Nuclear Reactor

melt downs like Fukushima, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island — would be virtually impossible at sea."

And the Titanic was an unsinkable ship.

Fundamental inescapable facts:

(1) Anything fragile can break, no matter how many backup systems and safeties you install, because

(2) Everything that can fail will eventually fail, and,

(3) When you have multiple things that can fail, eventually, they will all fail at the same time or the least opportune moment, and

(4) At sea, there is no such thing as a large man-made structure or boat that is not fragile.

Comment: Re:Are you still partying like its 1999, or what? (Score 1) 291

by mysidia (#46777957) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: System Administrator Vs Change Advisory Board

That particular outage cost several million given what the server did.

The problem is not the admin actions it's "what the server did"

The application the business was dependant on to generate millions of dollars was designed in such a fragile way, that it could fail as a result of whatever happened to just one server....

You see... this is bad architecture. Servers are prone to failure, even when designed with redundant components.

It is improper for a business application that generates revenue to be sensitive to a single or double server failure. Critical applications should be architected with a level of robustness that reflects their level of importance.

Never put off till run-time what you can do at compile-time. -- D. Gries

Working...