ghelmer - Slashdot User

Comment Re:Specialty Software (Score 1) 953

by ghelmer on Monday April 22, 2013 @05:44PM (#43519467) Attached to: Some Windows XP Users Can't Afford To Upgrade

I think you are missing the point that many of these dated systems are running control software for specialized hardware. Even for plain old data processing systems, though, there is astonishing complexity involved in managing electronic health records correctly, safely, and confidentially.

Comment Trolling Title (Score 1) 245

by ghelmer on Sunday December 09, 2012 @07:57PM (#42237551) Attached to: FreeBSD Project Falls Short of Year End Funding Target By Nearly 50%

Title should be something like "FreeBSD Foundation push to raise $500,000 goal". Usually a lot of the money each year is raised in the last month or so.

Comment More info needed (Score 2) 215

by ghelmer on Thursday September 20, 2012 @09:23PM (#41406797) Attached to: US Military Tested the Effects of a Nuclear Holocaust On Beer

From the '50s, beer would have been in rugged steel cans. How about today's thin aluminum cans?

Comment PasswordSafe (Score 1) 1007

by ghelmer on Tuesday November 10, 2009 @10:05PM (#30054906) Attached to: Best Tool For Remembering Passwords?

http://passwordsafe.sourceforge.net/

iPhone Users Angry Over AT&T Upgrade Policy 789

Posted by kdawson on Monday June 08, 2009 @08:29PM from the fair's-fair-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder dept.

All is not sweetness and light in the wake of the Apple WWDC kickoff announcements, especially concerning the evolution of the iPhone. Reader Hugh Pickens writes: "AT&T will offer the new iPhone 3G S when it debuts later this month at a cost of $199 and $299 for the 16GB and 32GB models, but only to new customers and those who qualify for the discounted price. AT&T subscribers with an iPhone 3G who are not eligible for an upgrade — those not near the end of their two-year contracts — will have to pay $200 more — $399 for the 16GB model and $499 for the 32GB model. 'This is ridiculous and slap in the face to long-time loyal iPhone customers like me who switched from T-Mobile and the only reason was the iPhone,' writes one unhappy iPhone customer. 'We have to mount a vigorous campaign to change this policy. Call your local AT&T and ask for the manager and complain. Send e-mails and post in forums everywhere.' The issue is spurring heavy debate on support discussion forums, with some customers supporting AT&T. 'The option you have is to honor the contract you freely committed yourself to,' says one forum member. 'If you want to upgrade early then you will have to pay full price with no subsidy discount. You can't blame anyone but yourself for your predicament.'"

Arctic Ice Extent Understated Because of "Sensor Drift" 823

Posted by samzenpus on Thursday February 19, 2009 @08:57AM from the give-it-a-few-taps dept.

dtjohnson writes "The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) has been at the forefront of predicting doom in the arctic as ice melts due to global warming. In May, 2008 they went so far as to predict that the North Pole would be ice-free during the 2008 'melt season,' leading to a lively Slashdot discussion. Today, however, they say that they have been the victims of 'sensor drift' that led to an underestimation of Arctic ice extent by as much as 500,000 square kilometers. The problem was discovered after they received emails from puzzled readers, asking why obviously sea-ice-covered regions were showing up as ice-free, open ocean. It turns out that the NSIDC relies on an older, less-reliable method of tracking sea ice extent called SSM/I that does not agree with a newer method called AMSR-E. So why doesn't NSIDC use the newer AMSR-E data? 'We do not use AMSR-E data in our analysis because it is not consistent with our historical data.' Turns out that the AMSR-E data only goes back to 2002, which is probably not long enough for the NSIDC to make sweeping conclusions about melting. The AMSR-E data is updated daily and is available to the public. Thus far, sea ice extent in 2009 is tracking ahead of 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008, so the predictions of an ice-free north pole might be premature."

One Broken Router Takes Out Half the Internet? 412

Posted by kdawson on Monday February 16, 2009 @07:32PM from the brain-gone-punky dept.

Silent Stephus writes "I work for a smallish hosting provider, and this morning we experienced a networking event with one of our upstreams. What is interesting about this, is it's being caused by a mis-configured router in Europe — and it appears to be affecting a significant portion of the transit providers across the Internet. In other words, a single mis-configured router is apparently able to cause a DOS for a huge chunk of the Net. And people don't believe me when I tell them all this new-fangled technology is held together by duct-tape and baling wire!"

Tech Companies That Won't Survive 2009 385

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Monday January 12, 2009 @02:30PM from the in-a-blaze-of-glory dept.

buzzardsbay writes "Fresh off their annual market survey, eWEEK channel folks have compiled the list of tech vendors their readers think will fail, falter, or be sold off in 2009. It's important to note that these aren't the opinions of the magazine or its editors. The list comes from folks who work in IT, mostly technology resellers, who are out in the field selling, installing and maintaining this stuff. If there were ever canaries in the tech coal mine, they'd be these service and solution providers who live and die by the slightest shift in the markets. Some of the companies on this list, like Sun and AMD, are shocking because of their size. Others, like CA and Symantec, not so surprising." What other companies are headed for implosion, or should be if all were right with the universe?

Feed Techdirt: Fat Finger Reverses Stock Market Slump (techdirt.com)

From feed by techdirtfeed on Thursday August 02, 2007 @03:32PM

The stock market has been taking a pounding over the past several sessions, but yesterday's action brought some relief as the major indices surged towards the close. There was no obvious catalyst for the move, although late-session reversals aren't all that rare. So, should investors be relieved that buyers stepped into the market? Not necessarily -- it would appear that the late really was simply caused by a so-called fat finger error. Basically, a trader at a major Wall Street firm messed up on an order and then had to do some major buying in order to cover for the mistake. Other traders, recognizing the situation, piled on, taking advantage of the sudden buying panic. These type of human errors happen from time to time, sometimes with great significant consequences for the offending firm or trader. In 2005, one such error at a Japanese firm ended up costing $251 million. This time, the consequences probably won't be so severe, although it still seems like it would be a good idea to develop some better preventative controls.

Slashdot Top Deals