Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Good then bad then good (Score 1) 171

Hate to be that guy, but:

[citation needed]

Here is a sample calculation done by the various people who make that claim:

typical study of reduction in lifespan due to smoking:

The average geezer on SSA gets 15K a year.

The average medicare per-person yearly cost for the over 65 people is $19K.

cigarettes killing the old folks 7 years early save $238K from SSA and Medicare

Lung cancer is an expensive way to go. typical last-year costs are 95K.
cigarettes death include heart failure and strokes. quick deaths are cheap.

Comment Yeah, I'd take the deal (Score 1) 228

I would do it if I were young.
As written, it would mean that in exchange for a year of no sex, I would get decades of not having to worry about not only my own account, but also the integrity of all the places that I have accounts. I have several bank, credit union, and brokerage accounts, and they would all have to be made secure to protect my accounts. There is also the IRS, and the various hospitals who hold my medical records.

"online security" has to include both endpoints to be safe. It's neither your MS windows nor your Linux boxes at home that You should to worry about.

Comment Re:The Unintended Consequences of Bad Math (Score 2) 624

So given a line-up of 2 randomly chosen people, one white and one black, there is essentially equal chance that either one is an ex-con. And if you have a line up of more than 2 people, one that is racial proportional to the general population, say 7 white guys, 1 hispanic guy, 1 black guy and one ethnically ambiguous-maybe-asian, then the chance that at least one of the white people is a felon is about 7x higher than the chance that the black guy is a felon.

I agree with everything you're saying, in principle, but your math is bad.
It's not true that there's an essentially equal chance that either one of a randomly picked white-black pair is an ex-con.
From your provided numbers ...
A randomly chosen white person is one out of 156 million of which there is a 2.1% chance you picked a felon.
A randomly chosen black person is one out of 27 million with a 12% chance you picked a felon.
The combinatorics of picking two people, one white and one black give us 4,212 million combinations of two chosen.
(for each white cycle through 27M black =156M*27M)
Of these 4,212M combinations, there are four possible arrangements.
innocent white and innocent black (152.8M Innoc-W * 24.2M Innoc-B = 3697.76M pairs gives 87.8% of pairs both innocent
felon white and innocent black (3.2M felon-W * 24.2 Innoc-B = 77.44M pairs gives 1.8% of pairs felon white and innocent black
innocent white and felon black (152.8M Innoc-W * 2.8M Felon-B = 428.06M pairs gives 10.2% innocent white and felon black
felon white and felon black (3.2M Felon-W * 2.8M Felon-B = 8.96M pairs gives .2% both felons

So, of two randomly chosen white-black pairs out of the general population, there's a 2% chance you have a white felon and a 10.4% chance there's a black felon.

Comment Re:Blame the news websites. (Score 1) 624

The problem is he was asked to point out one person.
The generalization is absolutely true (black guy is more likely to be ex-con), but you absolutely cannot take a generalization and apply it to a single specific case.

You can make a generalization from an aggregation of data points, but you cannot take a generalization, a single fact, and re-create an original data point, which is what you're being asked to do in the case of "pick the ex-con".

You can indeed state the probability that it's the black guy, but you simply do not know if it is him with certainty.

So the correct answer to the line-up question is "Not enough data. I don't know".

Comment Article is wrong (Score 1) 280

Typing cmd in the run dialog will launch PowerShell as well, so Microsoft has made a significant step towards phasing out the traditional Command Prompt.

I just upgraded my Insider preview to 14971,

As a result, PowerShell officially replaces the Command Prompt in the Win + X menu, so when you right-click the Start menu, you'll only be allowed to launch the more powerful app.

This is true.

Additionally, in File Explorer's File menu and in the context menu that appears when pressing Shift + right-click in any folder, the old Command Prompt will no longer be available.

This is false.

Typing cmd in the run dialog will launch PowerShell as well, so Microsoft has made a significant step towards phasing out the traditional Command Prompt.

Wrong again. Typing "cmd" into the run dialog launches "C:\windows\system32\cmd.exe"

Comment Re:I still don't want it (Score 1) 280

You can't issue dos/cmd commands. The likes of "dir" are aliases onto things in powershell which superficially resemble the old commands but function differently.

For example I can type "dir", but "dir /?" doesn't do a thing. So maybe the syntax is a bit different. Typing "dir -help" or "dir --help" issues an enormous error message that apparently I've done something wrong. Not helpful. Typing "help dir", tells me about something called "get-childitem" but essentially doesn't help at all except tell me to type "get-help Get-ChildItem -detailed". Eventually I get a wall of text which STILL doesn't correspond to the old syntax.

Would it have really killed Microsoft to make "dir" function like "dir"? Maybe later on when I'm comfortable and familiar with the powershell I might want call get-childitem for something. But it is FAR more important to me during transition that the thing is familiar and all the various .bat / .cmd scripts that I have actually survive the transition.

I should add that the command "ls" also aliases to "get-childitem". So Microsoft are equal-opportunity confounders.

Yes, what you said about dir etc being aliases in PS and not the "real" commands.
Presently you can run .bat file in powershell just fine because powershell spawns a cmd.exe to run that bat file in the same way that opening a .txt file opens notepad.exe.
Oddly enough though, as you pointed out, running single cmd.exe commands doesn't work under powershell in many cases.
Most of the non-text characters, @, $, | and so on, have different meanings in cmd and in powershell.
From the PS prompt "@echo Hey!" fails, but put "@echo Hey!" in a .bat file and it works because PS launches cmd.exe to run it.

However, if you really want to do things from the command line and you're in a PS prompt, you can type cmd.exe and then dir /? or anything works just fine in that shell. Notice that the prompt changes when you do that.

Comment Re:I still don't want it (Score 1) 280

Out of curiosity, have you ever opened powershell and started issuing dos/cmd commands?

Here's a hint: works great. Powershell isn't a superset of cmd, but it implements cmd commands. You can likely take a .bat file, rename it to .ps, and have it run just fine. I've never had a problem doing so, at least.

This is kind of like complaining that your Linux distro is replacing sh with bash; all your old stuff will keep working, but now you have new options and abilities that you can slowly migrate to.

Powershell launches cmd.exe to execute .bat files in the same way that typing "names.txt" opens "names.txt" in notepad.

Comment Re:All Grown Up (Score 1) 227

" What technology needs to happen that does not exist already? "

Since we have not sent even a rat to Mars, the answer to your asinine question is: EVERYTHING. Until you've BUILT and DONE it, all you have is WISHFUL THINKING.

How is that an asinine question?

Make a list of the technology needed to send and land humans on the moon.
Make a list of the technology needed to send and land the Curiosity rover to Mars.
Make a list of the technology needed to support humans in the ISS for the last 18 years.

You've just made a list of almost all of the technology needed to send humans to Mars.

So the next question is exactly, " What technology needs to happen that does not exist already? "
I think that the radiation problem, that is, how to lift how much shielding is going to be a big one.

Comment Re:But what is the crime? (Score 4, Interesting) 94

Also, one thing that media forgets to mention is that his activity was noticed before the flash crash and the exchanges told him to stop doing that. He continued his bogus trades, and he made the mistake of lying about his activities in emails with the exchanges.
Nothing quite like documenting your crimes in email, is there? For some reason that sounds familiar, but it no longer seems important ...

Comment Re:But what is the crime? (Score 5, Informative) 94

Here's the criminal complaint as filed by the US government.
It includes what he did and why it was a criminal act.

What Navinder was trying to do with his bogus orders was to place them OUTSIDE the existing range of buy/sell orders and in large volume to make it appear that there were people actively buying which drives the price up. Ideally ,once he's made his actual sale, he stops placing his bogus orders and the price returns to normal. If he gets too greedy and screws up, he causes a crash and gets caught.
You can also do it with bogus sell orders to drive the prices down.
People have been doing that since forever, and it's been illegal for some time.
It's a variation of what you may have heard called "pump and dump", but instead of spreading rumors, he abused the market's internal machinery to artificially manipulate the prices with a specially designed computer program to prevent his trades from getting filled.

How is what he did different than HFT?
HFT traders do place orders that they intend to cancel, however, if someone successfully intercepted an order placed by a HFT trader, that order would get filled. It appears to me that there was no possibility that Navinder could fill the orders he placed.
The other difference is that the HFT traders are doing price discovery and arbitrage, which is to say they are placing their orders BETWEEN existing active buy and sell orders to get an optimal price for a trade. That is, they are trying to find the best sell and buy order prices so that they can place an optimal buy/sell order.
What HFT traders do tends to bring prices closer together and increase liquidity in normal conditions. These are good for the market (unless they screw up).
BTW, HFT and algorithmic trading are not the same thing, but they can be combined and done by the same people. Some of what HFT gets blamed for is actually the fault of computer-driven algorithmic trading.

Comment Re:Vote-flipping Evidence (Score 2) 317

There are already a lot of videos circulating that show vote-flipping, where you vote for A, but the machine records B. Making selfies illegal would make the evidence that this has happeened inadmissable in court.

What is happening is a combination of poorly calibrated machines and parallax on touch-screen devices.
People touch one place and the adjacent spot is activated. All the voter has to do is touch again a bit higher or lower to get the vote they want.
It's not changing the vote after the fact.

The same thing happens on bank ATMs when you try to touch $20 but get $50 instead, but people realize this and don't post to Facebook that they think the bank is cheating them.

Slashdot Top Deals

If you fail to plan, plan to fail.