Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Seems reasonable (Score 2) 115

by runningduck (#49781679) Attached to: Insurer Won't Pay Out For Security Breach Because of Lax Security

Typically a company has to undergo an assessment to qualify for the insurance and then periodically reassess annually. At least that has been the case for every information security insurance policy with which I have been involved. Where companies can veer off track is if they are not consistent in their application of the assessment. For example a new system or process goes on line and a senior manager just wants it done, NOW! The new system or process may never be considered under that annual assessment because the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. In another example an IT manager runs everything by the seat of his/her pants and forgets to consider the insurance requirements when deploying new systems or processes, or allows staff to "fix problems" in production without evaluating the fixes against the original requirements.

Comment: Re:Or, it could be unrelated to actually extending (Score 2) 286

by runningduck (#49267471) Attached to: Elon Musk Pledges To End "Range Anxiety" For Tesla Model S

I am betting that the feature will manage speed based on destination and charging. Many people either over or under estimate how speed affects range. By integrating speed/range calculations into driving, a Tesla should be able to manage max speed for the driver without the driver having to constantly guess.

For bonus point the software update would be able to incorporate other range affecting factors into the calculations such as traffic, speedlimits, elevation changes, weather and driver habits.

Comment: Re:Not quite comparable (Score 1) 215

by runningduck (#49060949) Attached to: Japan Now Has More Car Charging Points Than Gas Stations

Fair enough. As I say I was not sure what your point was. That could be on me, but even after rereading your post I am still not sure. Your follow-up provides some clarity.

I agree that the market will have to evolve. Currently most electric cars can only travel 70ish miles per charge. This limits ownership to people who can charge at home. Incidentally approximately 60% of adults in the U.S. live in a home where they could charge a car. I don't think that home charging is limiting the market. Range is likely the limiting factor.

I expect that as we see affordable pure electric cars with ranges of 150 ~ 200 miles that market will explode from the current 1% to 5%~10% all still comfortably within the home charging footprint of the market. Outside of the reduction of range anxioty the economics of electric cars becomes increasingly compelling with increased miles driven.

But to your point regarding the need to increase public charging on the scale of gas stations, I just do not see that happening or even important. I think that there are more incentives for appartment property owners to outfit premium electric car spot and charge a small fee than to have gas station like charging.

Comment: Re:Not quite comparable (Score 1) 215

by runningduck (#49056611) Attached to: Japan Now Has More Car Charging Points Than Gas Stations

I cannot tell if you are stuck thinking in a traditional gas station paradigm or are making my point for me. You are correct that there needs to be many more places to charge electric cars. But you seem to be mixing home charging with public charging. You should never have to wait in line at home unless you have two electric cars and only one outlet. By the way, it can cost as little as $150 to add an outlet. Of the approximately 600 times I have charged my car I have only plugged into public stations three times, and none of those times was absolutely necessary.

Comment: Re:Not quite comparable (Score 4, Insightful) 215

by runningduck (#49054865) Attached to: Japan Now Has More Car Charging Points Than Gas Stations

Yes, however you very rarely need to go to a public charge station. Most charging is done at home while you sleep or for some people while they work. I understand that this is not practical for apartment dwellers, but keep in mind that any standard outlet can recharge the typical driving range over night; no charge station needed.

A more important metric might be how many public charge stations are necessary compared to gas stations.

Comment: Re: New research find's water wet (Score 1) 411

by runningduck (#49044753) Attached to: Your Java Code Is Mostly Fluff, New Research Finds

I think you missed the point of my post and maybe even the article.

You are absolutely correct that a language is a tool. But the point of a tool is to solve a problem. I was not advocating the use of C for general purpose business coding or even calling C an equivalent to Java. I was making a point by analogy being C has many obvious constructs that serve the language more than the problem being soled. There are also many constructs in Java that although not as heavy as having to manage your own memory off-sets are nonetheless equally superfluous to solving the actual business problem.

Java is a great language for many things, but as the article accurately notes, the language has its own layer of cruft that only services the purpose of the language. This becomes a bigger problem as Java developers push Java into more niches where it is likely not the most appropriate language.

While you, my friend, may be an experienced practitioner who selects another language when the problem is not appropriate for Java, there are many who simply force Java into the project. So regardless of your superior professional judgment regarding the selection of languages, the premise of my statements and the article stand.

Comment: Re: New research find's water wet (Score 1) 411

by runningduck (#49035265) Attached to: Your Java Code Is Mostly Fluff, New Research Finds

I think they are referring to thing such as malloc calls in C. Although the call is necessary, its purpose is to serve the programming language and not necessarily the purpose of the program. The point is that the most appropriate language should be abstracted sufficiently so that the programmer can focus as much as possible on solving the problem and not servicing the needs of the language.

Comment: Re:I guess that means ... (Score 4, Interesting) 340

by runningduck (#48771329) Attached to: Researchers "Solve" Texas Hold'Em, Create Perfect Robotic Player

What happens if someone else creates an identicly perfect robotic player and joins the table? If, as the researches claim, winning limit Texas Hold'em is a directly solvable problem then anybody else who tries to solve the problem will come up with the exact same solution.

If these two robots played each other wouldn't the winner be determined by pure luck?

Comment: Re:It's been in bash a while. (Score 2) 318

by runningduck (#47999943) Attached to: Flurry of Scans Hint That Bash Vulnerability Could Already Be In the Wild

I am not even sure that this should be considered a bug in Bash. Why should we be surprised when a program whose sole purpose is to execute arbitrary commands is found to execute arbitrary commands? The only surprise is that it does so to a greater extent than expected. There have been documents since the 90's which emphasized the need to not pass unsanitized data to a CGI script and even more specifically Bash. I think that there could be a good argument that the bug is really in mod_cgi. Think of it this way, if a web application passes unvalidated input to an SQL server which in turn exposes data in unexpected ways is the bug in the SQL server?

Comment: Re:Linux is just a full of holes as Windows (Score 1) 399

by runningduck (#47990739) Attached to: Remote Exploit Vulnerability Found In Bash

Just having Bash installed does not make a system vulnerable. In order for the system to be vulnerable you also need to provide a method for a remote party to pass an environment string to the Bash shell. This would typically be handled via CGI when the web server hands GET and POST data via an environment variable to a Bash script. I do not believe Apache call to Bash for launching a Perl based CGI script so the global attack surface should be pretty small. I do not think I have seen a Bash CGI script since the 90's.

Comment: Re:That's not what MotherJones says (Score 1) 157

by runningduck (#47830945) Attached to: Reno Selected For Tesla Motors Battery Factory

NO! What I am saying is that we should not be subsidizing either technology because it will only serve to artificially distort the market. Having said that there is a big different between providing short term incentives and propping up a market. There may have been an argument at one point to subsidize the oil industry the U.S. was in the early stages of building our economic engine, but those days have long past. The oil industry is no longer fueling growth, but instead it is inhibiting innovation. The savings people could realize in either reduced fuel costs and/or reduced taxes would be put to much more productive use in our economy.

Comment: Re:That's not what MotherJones says (Score 1) 157

by runningduck (#47822293) Attached to: Reno Selected For Tesla Motors Battery Factory

You math is off on a number of counts. The tax incentive is between 5.6% and 17.6% depending on the model, options and state incentives. Tesla Model S prices range from $71,070 to $132,420. Incentives start with a federal incentive of $7,500 plus up to an additional $5,000 incentive depending on your state.

However, I think that your largest mis-calculation is assuming that electric car sales would go down if we eliminated ALL automobile related subsidies. It is easy to see how much the unsubsidised cost of owning and operating an electric car would be, but what would be the impact if we stopped providing oil exploration subsidies, direct oil company operating incentives, and oil shipping lane protection services. I let you off on the cost of wars being that cost is split among protecting oil supplies, protecting international stability, providing humnatarian aid, and just pumping up good ol' American pride. :) Oh, and let's not forget the 100% incentive for purchasing a highend SUV.

I'll give you a hint . . . the average annual operating cost of a gas powered vehicle would increase by a more than $5,000 per year (assuming oil companies were able to protect shipping lanes at military rates instead of full commercial service rates).

Comment: Re:The main problem with all elec (Score 1) 247

by runningduck (#47388361) Attached to: Tesla Aims For $30,000 Price, 2017 Launch For Model E

I generally agree with the challenges with an appartment, but a garage is not necessary. I live in an older neighborhood where there are no garages and several people have Leafs. People generally install charge stations on the side of their houses and plug the cars in while in their driveways.

I have seen a couple of newer appartment comlexes provide a row of charge stations as well. I believe that even providing a row of low cost 110 outlets is sufficient for most daily driving.

The trouble with doing something right the first time is that nobody appreciates how difficult it was.