Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:We have more but we USE more. (Score 1) 160

by vux984 (#48218729) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Smarter Disk Space Monitoring In the Age of Cheap Storage?

How did you get to 90% if you're only using 2.5-5% per year?

a) I'm not at 90%; as it happens I'm at around 50%. I said when I reach 90% it will take a year or 2 to reach 95%

b) I didn't start at 0% and then average a couple percent a year. I was at 30-40% within a week of setting up the new home PC.

I copied my 10,000 track music library. So 50GB or so right there. And another several thousand digital images, scans, and so forth. I have a small library of ISOs I keep on the drive worth another 20-30GB. A handful of movies. A couple dozen games and large applications installed... the steam folder alone is 300GB. (And I have only a fraction of my library installed; but its the fraction I always go back to plus what's new that I'm playing now. So although its was 250GB+ within a week of setting up the PC... its only grown another 50GB in the last couple years.

And now that its all set up, it grows, but not especially quickly. I add a few hundred audio tracks, and a few hundred photos a year, email, documents, tax records, etc... everything else is fairly steady state.

Comment: Re:We have more but we USE more. (Score 2) 160

by vux984 (#48214693) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Smarter Disk Space Monitoring In the Age of Cheap Storage?

But you are four years past the safe lifespan of your disk, and when needed, it could fail.

Hence... backups.

Hoarding capacity for a decade is as foolish as running out of space tomorrow.

Hoarding capacity? I don't even really know what that is supposed to mean.

Comment: Re:We have more but we USE more. (Score 1) 160

by vux984 (#48214423) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Smarter Disk Space Monitoring In the Age of Cheap Storage?

In my experiences, a 90 percent full drive has as much time left before running out as it did a decade ago.

In your experience maybe. Not in mine.

I don't use 10s of GB at a time. If I start a new torrent, dump my phones camera onto my computer, or install a new game that eats a several GB. But everything else is pretty steady state with very slow steady growth. I don't download a lot of torrents on this particular PC, and sometimes remove old ones, I install a few new games a year and sometimes uninstall old ones...

When I hit 90% full on my current data drive, I'm probably 1 to 2 years out from hitting 95%.

Comment: Re:Randomized MAC for background scans ... (Score 1) 157

by vux984 (#48214345) Attached to: Austin Airport Tracks Cell Phones To Measure Security Line Wait

If you've got a recent iPhone, it's already randomizing the MAC used for background scans:

Sort of.

http://www.imore.com/closer-lo...

The key is 'device's processor is asleep'. Any time it wakes up, it probes with its real mac. So if your in line at the store, phone is in your pocket, and twitter gets an update (over cellular data), that still wakes your phone up, and it probes with its real mac.

Or, since your in line at the store and bored, you pull out your phone and check the time, and respond to an sms... its awake and it probes wifi with its real mac.

It turns out its a lot less useful at protecting your privacy than you think.

Comment: Re:A bit???? (Score 1) 157

by vux984 (#48214301) Attached to: Austin Airport Tracks Cell Phones To Measure Security Line Wait

How do probes with random macs break it? If a known network it wants to connect to is present it can use its real address.

But for probing -- for determining what available in-range SSIDs are present; so that location services can use the SSID list to assist positioning, and so that it can decide whether it wants to present its real address in a follow up / probe / connection request... that seems like something simple that shouldn't break anything.

And beyond that other than filtering by mac (which is idiotic) even the real mac should be randomizable between sessions with the same network SSID. (And should work with vlans, bridges etc)

People with a deep knowledge of 802 protocols are looking at this and it isn't simple or easy.

probing without connecting should be simple and easy.
I concede that maintaining any sort of connectivity needs some thought.

Comment: Re:A bit???? (Score 4, Informative) 157

by vux984 (#48213989) Attached to: Austin Airport Tracks Cell Phones To Measure Security Line Wait

I disagree. Although i do think my phone should change its mac address regularly so that the tracking is at most session based. They know -a phone- was in line for 30 minutes. They don't know the phone is my phone. And when they see a phone a for 30 minutes next week they won't know its the -same phone-.

Also, just a heads up to those excited about Apple's ios mac randomization -- its proving to be not remotely as good as they led us to believe it would be. (It only sends out a random mac when a) not connected to a network, b) AND asleep.

Any time anything wakes up the phone it probes with its real mac. (So for example, if your on cellular data, and twitter or email or something gets a message to your phone, it wakes up and probes wifi with its real mac...) rendering the feature all but useless. Apparently the fake probes also include your recent SSID list too making them even more useless.

http://www.imore.com/closer-lo...

So... not worse than ios7 ... but not exactly useful either.

And on that note, does anyone recommend a good automatic mac randomizer for android?

Comment: Re:Goal Should Be Zero Revenue (Score 1) 394

by vux984 (#48199617) Attached to: Speed Cameras In Chicago Earn $50M Less Than Expected

Red light violation ticket costs are way out of proportion with the potential damage done. For example: I go through about 40 traffic lights as part of my daily commute. If I sneak through only one of them every day, then I could potentially owe about $40,000 in fines each year.

And if I go out at 2am drive to the nearest deserted red light and just drive backwards and forward through it, I can rack that up in a single evening. I'm not sure what your point is? That you can deliberately hang yourself on the law if you are an idiot? Ok... I'll give you that.

In 10+ years of red light cameras here, I've never gotten a ticket from one, ever, and I drive through at least 3 to 4 protected intersections a day. And I don't count myself as a qualified driver ed instructor or anything else. I go days even weeks at a time without seeing the camera flash at any one; so its not like the general public has a difficulty with the concept.

I'm certain the safety aspect of a few extra cars going through the end of a red doesn't constitute enough of a safety issue to warrant fines at that level.

It does if you want them to stop doing it. Because a normal person isn't going to get 40,000 in fines, they are going to get 1 or 2 and then "figure it out" and stop getting them. But if the fine is $5 they won't care unless they ARE getting them daily.

Anyone with $40,000 in annual red light camera fines shouldn't be on the road, because if nothing else, it means they are incapable of "figuring it out".

If a rule is being ignored, then it's probably a bad rule.

Like stopping for red lights? Is that a bad rule?

Also, I assure you that a few extra cars getting through a red light doesn't promote gridlock at the next one

Traffic jams can arise nearly spontaneously via something like 'butterfly' effects. A few cars sneaking through the red (and in turn delaying the traffic moving crosswise as a result) can disrupt traffic in both directions leading to congestion "waves" that lead to jams where it would otherwise not occur. It doesn't take much at all to disrupt traffic and create waves.

There's a demo on youtube where they asked drivers to simply drive on an even circular track at 30km/h maintaining the same distance from the car in front, and within a short time there was a conjestion wave causing cars to have to stop completely when it hit them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Its amazing how little it takes to disrupt stable traffic flow.

The state of traffic engineering is pretty dismal.

No argument. But saying that, traffic is much more complicated than regular fluid dynamics, and good mathematical models are hard to come by. And then to top it off you've got various political meddling overriding otherwise good design.

Comment: Re:Goal Should Be Zero Revenue (Score 1) 394

by vux984 (#48197581) Attached to: Speed Cameras In Chicago Earn $50M Less Than Expected

Your opinion that red light cameras would help with traffic flow is just a gut feeling, not data

Within a couple months of red light cameras being added the situation where 1 to 10 cars would stream through the red light during each cycle during rush hour had ceased.

That much is a fact not an opinion. Sure, whether or not it improved traffic flow is question for debate. Presuming the traffic light timing is engineered properly its a reasonable speculation, but I'd be happy to see a study funded.

I strongly suspect that adding a red light camera to an intersection would not allow more people to go through per hour.

I don't think you realize how much congestion can be alleviated by regulating flow properly. Getting more cars through one intersection only to have them completely gridlock a little further in is a net negative.

I'd further suspect that enforcing the signals reduces aggressive driving and road rage -- because people get irate when they have a green light and a stream of traffic running the red light prevents them from starting, and only reinforces the urge to run the red light yourself when presented with the situation.

Even if it helped, a traffic circle would help more

Maybe. I like roundabouts, and traffic circles. I supported having one put on my street during the public consultation period when they were reassessing the intersection. But they don't work everywhere. Roundabouts aren't easy to navigate for large trucks so they don't make sense on truck routes, highways, etc. And and proper multi-lane traffic circles need space -- are you proposing we knock down downtown skyscrapers to put one in at every intersection? How exactly is that a simple cost effective solution without conflict of interest?

so why bother with a solution that costs good people money

That's just it. Red light cameras don't cost good people money. Good responsible people don't habitually run red lights*, so its a non-issue. The cameras, with the threat of a fine, were effective at altering good peoples behavior at intersections, which was the goal. I've never gotten a red light camera ticket; my wife has never gotten one. We both drive through camera protected intersections every single day, we aren't even conscious of them.

Policing should not be automated.

I generally agree. But I'm not outraged by red light cameras.

Alhtough I do think any enforcement revenue collected by automated systems should simply be paid back to the residents as a dividend against their property taxes. It shouldn't go to the police. It shouldn't go to general revenue. It shouldn't create entities dependent on the money.

* Speed enforcement is completely different because the conflicting objectives of driving with the flow of traffic combined with speed limit changes, terrain changes, vague signage, plus the imprecise nature of vehicle speed measurement means that yes, the majority of good responsible conscientious drivers DO habitually exceed the limit, at least sometimes, by a little.

Comment: Re:Goal Should Be Zero Revenue (Score 1) 394

by vux984 (#48196361) Attached to: Speed Cameras In Chicago Earn $50M Less Than Expected

Running a light that is obviously red is very dangerous, so it is rarely done on purpose.

Running a late red on purpose is very dangerous and nobody does it on purpose. And people who do it by accident aren't going to be any more deterred by a red light camera, because if they'd realized they it was a red light they would have stopped, with or without a camera.

However, in some cities I've been in, during rush hour, at busy intersections I've observed a pattern where the light is green and cars flow through the intersection, the light turns yellow, and cars continue to flow, the light turns red and cars keep flowing through. Its not particularly "dangerous" because traffic is heavy enough that the opposing lanes are all stopped and backed up themselves, and they won't start while the intersection still has an uninterrupted stream of cars flowing through it, even though they might have a green light.

Another related pattern is left turns on regular green lights, where by law (at least where I live), a car can 'establish' itself in the intersection during a green (or yellow), and then when oncoming traffic clears, it completes its left turn. It might enter on a green, and have to wait until yellow, or even red before completing the turn. And this is legal.

But again, I often see cases where multiple cars complete the turn, even cars not 'established' in the intersection, but several cars queued up, the last several are entering the intersection on a red, and again this is only mildly dangerous as opposing traffic has been stopped, and is waiting for the intersection to clear, and again the cars running the red are part of an uninterrupted stream.

I've seen it in some cases, where more than half the opposing traffics green light is blocked by a constant stream of red-light runners. Each one 'secure' that as long as they are in the stream, opposing traffic isn't going to start.

Red light cameras effectively curb this undesirable behaviour.

This is supported by a large amount of data that show that accident rates either stayed flat or increased in almost every case

Provided they don't mess with the timings, there may be a rash of relatively miner rear ender as drivers adjust to the idea that they can't run red lights anymore. And this isn't necessarily a 'bad thing'. A bit of mild short term pain for long term gain, and a reason why looking at the accident rate doesn't tell the whole story.

Here's the real question - why do people continue to push red light cameras for safety when there is real data that shows that red light cameras have no net positive effect on safety?

Red light cameras as revenue generation is asinine. And red light cameras for 'safety' is dubious at best.

But they can improve traffic flow by enforcing the timings as displayed by the lights. (per the scenarios above). And indeed they are an appropriate solution here.

And I generally support responsibly installed red light cameras. (Ie those installed without tampering with yellow duration).

The average responsible driver will never run afoul of them.

I despise speed cameras though. (And not because I get speeding tickets, but because they are misused in ways that are just disgusting... I was recently in Melbourne, and the tolerance there is crazy low. They automatically ticket people for doing 62 in a 60. And they'll do things like set up traps just in front of the 100km/h sign -- and ticket people transitioning from 50/60km/h to 100km/h as they approach the sign (since its not technically 100km/h until after the sign...)

That's not about safety. That's not about traffic flow. That's just revenue generation.

Comment: Re:Bose is overpriced crap and always has been (Score 2) 328

by vux984 (#48180019) Attached to: Despite Patent Settlement, Apple Pulls Bose Merchandise From Its Stores

"Actually, as many review comparisons have noted over the years, Apple's products are priced only a very little bit higher than what other PC manufacturers offer given the exact same hardware"

This is true. But give a PC buyer a choice between a PC that comes with a bluetooth keyboard and mouse, thunderbolt, wireless 802.11ac, and 4 usb 3 ports at one price and another PC with the SAME CPU and RAM and harddrive but comes with wifi keyboard and mouse, no thunderbolt, wireless-n, and 2usb3 ports + 2usb2 ports that costs $300+ less and nearly all them will have no reason to justify the expense of the premium model.

That is the issue with Macs. They sell you stuff you don't need, don't care about, and can't use. Wireless-ac being forced down our throats for example... what home user cares about it? What is it going to talk to at 1.3GPs? Or bluetooth peripherals? wifi gear is half the price, tends to do better on battery -- hell logitech makes solar wifi keyboards now. Or thunderbolt?Why exactly is every imac user paying for two of them? I've yet to meet a single home user with a single thunderbolt peripheral.

Save one -- bunches of pissed of macbook pro owners who need a thunderbolt to ethernet dongle because apple didn't deign to give a pro laptop a built in network port.

Comment: Re:Yawn (Score 1) 354

by vux984 (#48171987) Attached to: Apple Announces iPad Air 2, iPad mini 3, OS X Yosemite and More

It's already been pointed out to you that in the presentation they also compared with the last iPad. So the information you're whining about was there

Indeed. It turns out I'm only complaining about the slashdot summary, and reporting of the event, not the event itself.

I guess I'm not surprised. :)

Comment: Re:Hollywood is mentally bankrupt (Score 1) 187

by vux984 (#48171935) Attached to: Warner Brothers Announces 10 New DC Comics Movies

I think what annoys people are lame reboots like Robocop

Crappy movies are crappy.

I liked the Dredd remake far more than the Stallone original. And I enjoy both Total Recall movies. I'm not of the opinion that once a book or franchise has been done, that it necessarily must never be done again. (Sure I'd be upset if that's ALL they did, but its not...so I'm not.)

Hell, I'm anxiously waiting for enough time to pass for them to considering doing another Minority Report adaptation because the one we have now utterly ruined it.

or the fact that they made three shit Spiderman movies and then decided to make another three that were only marginally better due to contractual obligations.

True. On the other hand nobody made me watch them all, and I only bothered with the first 2 of the six, and of those only thought the first was worth watching, and only then because of Molino and Dafoe .:)

Comment: Re:Hollywood is mentally bankrupt (Score 1) 187

by vux984 (#48171757) Attached to: Warner Brothers Announces 10 New DC Comics Movies

" Lego movies are proof of the death of creativity."

Given that half the message of the movie was to encourage people to be creative I don't think your complaint holds a lot of water.

" Them little plastic bricks are expensive."

On the upside they seem to last pretty much forever, and buying assorted bulk on craigslist and ebay works well when you just want to add some 'mass' to your lego pile. :)

Comment: Re:Hollywood is mentally bankrupt (Score 2) 187

by vux984 (#48164147) Attached to: Warner Brothers Announces 10 New DC Comics Movies

Lets see the last several movies I went to:

Lego movie -- creative and fun movie, based on lego, of course, but I didn't see that on your list of complaints.

Guardians of the Galaxy -- comic book inspired (although I'd never read nor heard of it before)

Edge of Tomorrow -- unless it was a Japanese remake this seemed pretty original. Sure it had elements of Groundhog day but to call it a reboot of groundhog day would be stretching it. ;)

Wreck-It-Ralph -- original, featured 2ndary characters from a variety of existing games

Hobbit II - based on the Hobbit and LotR appendixes + sequel

Hunger Games 2 - book adaptation / sequel? (or just adaptation of book 2?)

Looper - original work?

Django - original?

Star Trek Into Darkness - reboot/remake and sequel all in one

Despicable Me 2 - original sequel

Frozen - original (and ok, by now its probably clear I have kids)

Hugo - original?

Tinker Tailer Soldier Spy - apparently a book adaptation

Seriously -- while I don't dispute that there are a lot of reboots and sequels and such out there, there's lots of good original work and/or novel adaptations that aren't sequels and reboots. Overall I'd say this has been a great decade...

There are running jobs. Why don't you go chase them?

Working...