×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

SSD-HDD Price Gap Won't Go Away Anytime Soon

Dcnjoe60 Re:We live like kings and queens already (254 comments)

but the SSD will wipe the floor with the HDD. That's why you install one smallish SSD for OS and APPS, and a big HDD for data and such

That is all true, but that is not what the original poster stated. His premise was that SSDs are faster (which they are) and no more per MB than an HDD (which they aren't).

2 days ago
top

SSD-HDD Price Gap Won't Go Away Anytime Soon

Dcnjoe60 Re:oh how wrong this is (254 comments)

A 480GB Crucial M500 is slightly cheaper per GB than a 4TB spinning drive right now. I think the 960GB SSD is as well.

That comparison is meaningless because a 4TB is at a premium price. If you think you need 500GB, use should compare a 500GB HDD with an SSD (480GB being close enough). I can get a 500GB 7200RPM SATA drive for about $50. A Crucial M500 is about $120. The SSD is 140% more costly or 2.4 times the price per GB.

3 days ago
top

SSD-HDD Price Gap Won't Go Away Anytime Soon

Dcnjoe60 Re:We live like kings and queens already (254 comments)

Today we can have an SSD for the price of $0.50 / GB. It is already good enough.

I can get a 1TB SATA hdd for $69 at Best Buy. How much would a 1TB SSD cost?

3 days ago
top

Intuit, Maker of Turbotax, Lobbies Against Simplified Tax Filings

Dcnjoe60 Re:Intuit is the Microsoft of tax software (416 comments)

TurboTax efiled my Federal return free, but charged actual money to efile my State return. (Don't know how much, but it was double-digit dollars. I didn't bother to look at the exact amount, since it didn't matter for my decision making, so I only remember the number of digits.)

I'm pretty sure that the only people who gain from charging that much for efiling are the USPS.

Actually, your purchase price included your free federal filing. You probably paid close to $20 for the state of which a portion is returned to Intuit.

4 days ago
top

Survey: 56 Percent of US Developers Expect To Become Millionaires

Dcnjoe60 Wishing doesn't make it so (457 comments)

One could say the same thing about high school athletes expecting to go pro.

4 days ago
top

Student Records Kids Who Bully Him, Then Gets Threatened With Wiretapping Charge

Dcnjoe60 Wire tapping? (791 comments)

The kid needs a new attorney. From Pennsylvania's own site:
The law does not cover oral communications when the speakers do not have an "expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation." See 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. 5702 (link is to the entire code, choose Title 18, Part II, Article F, Chapter 57, Subchapter A, and then the specific provision). Therefore, you may be able to record in-person conversations occurring in a public place without consent. However, you should always get the consent of all parties before recording any conversation that common sense tells you is private.

The recordings he made were all in the public venue. Also, while recording conversations in PA requires the consent of both parties, that is only for the purposes of meetings, phone conversations, etc. Otherwise, recording the school play or little league team would be a violation under the law in PA and it isn't. No, either the story is short on a critical fact, or a grave injustice has occurred.

4 days ago
top

Bill Gates Patents Detecting, Responding To "Glassholes"

Dcnjoe60 Re:Picky details (140 comments)

I haven't seen the application yet, but I'd be quite surprised if it contains enough information to actually detect cameras -- given, after all, that a camera doesn't necessarily look like anything in particular, nor emit a signal declaring "I am a camera."

More likely, Gates et al are doing the old trick of patenting the idea of detecting a camera and then planning to fill in the blanks as the technology improves. Jerry Lemelson was the grand master of this trick and made billions (yes, with a "B") with it. On numerous occasions he actually sued, and prevailed, against the people who actually invented the technology that he incorporated in revised patent applications because his application predated their invention.

What technology would that be? Using a built in webcam to scan the surroundings trying to detect the presence of another camera? Wouldn't that process simply trigger all the other computers in the room to also blur their screens? So much for internet cafes! You are right, however, that this is a vapor patent. It used to be to file a patent, you had to have an invention, not just the idea that someday we might be able to do this somehow.

4 days ago
top

Bill Gates Patents Detecting, Responding To "Glassholes"

Dcnjoe60 I guess this is the end of computers then. (140 comments)

I guess, if implemented, this patent will be the end of the personal computer as we know it. Since the patent is about blurring the screen or providing a privacy popup in the presence of cameras, then it will be virtually impossible to use one. Think of how many webcams are on devices from tablets to full size desktops (would they detect themselves and blur their own screen?) What about all of the phones with cameras? Will it detect traffic cameras, ATM cameras and the like? If so, using an in-dash GPS will be difficult if it implements this patent.

Google Glass is invasive to one's privacy, but it's just one of many invasions of privacy caused by consumer electronics.

4 days ago
top

Intuit, Maker of Turbotax, Lobbies Against Simplified Tax Filings

Dcnjoe60 Re:Intuit is the Microsoft of tax software (416 comments)

Um, I e-filed my girlfriend's parents' returns for California for free for the last two years. Federal was free both years, too.

Federal costs $5 which is usually included in the purchase price of the software. States usually cost $20 which is not included, unless you are using Turbo Tax, which has the cost built in. However, CA may have been one of the states that pays a fee behind the scenes to Intuit or were not found to be competing against them. It all has to do with the particulars of each state and how they handled doing returns from the internet.

5 days ago
top

Intuit, Maker of Turbotax, Lobbies Against Simplified Tax Filings

Dcnjoe60 Re:Intuit is the Microsoft of tax software (416 comments)

If you are in NJ you can do your own state taxes easily through their website for free. Did it on both TurboTax and NJ and they equaled the exact amounts.

Yes and that is why Intuit sued for unfair competition and got the high fee to e-file state returns so they still get a piece of the pie.

5 days ago
top

Intuit, Maker of Turbotax, Lobbies Against Simplified Tax Filings

Dcnjoe60 Re:What was their argument? (416 comments)

Most middle class dont have enough deductions to itemize them.

Not sure I would go this far. Most middle class families own homes and can deduct the interest on their mortgages.

But the bank is already sending the interest statements to the IRS, so home interest wouldn't be an issue. Contributions and all the other deductions that don't come from something being reported to the government would pose the problem. So, if implemented, I would suspect that it would only be for those using the standard deduction.

5 days ago
top

Intuit, Maker of Turbotax, Lobbies Against Simplified Tax Filings

Dcnjoe60 Re:What was their argument? (416 comments)

Depends... They're saying that poor people wouldn't get deductions and tax credits if they did this...

So... that's a credible point.

That said, if poor people did this then the form itself might get reformed enough to account for that without the complexity... perhaps by lowering the fucking taxes.

Most poor people don't have enough deductions to itemize them, so the deductions are a red herring. Tax credits could be an issue, but it doesn't sound insurmountable. In addition, poor people don't use Turbo Tax, so why is Intuit even bringing it up?

5 days ago
top

Intuit, Maker of Turbotax, Lobbies Against Simplified Tax Filings

Dcnjoe60 Intuit is the Microsoft of tax software (416 comments)

This is just one more thing Intuit does to hurt taxpayers. The biggest and craziest is that where you can e-file your federal return for around $5, most states charge $20, because Intuit sued them for unfair competition when states came out with online 2D barcoded returns. Intuit wasn't upset if a taxpayer filled out a regular PDF and mailed it in, but evidently since the 2D bar coded ones saved states revenue and they encouraged them, they felt it cut into their profits and sued. Evidently the courts agreed and now, you must pay extra to e-file a state return so Intuit can get their cut, even though you aren't using their software.

If people were smart, they would use one of the alternatives to Turbo-Tax, e-file their federal return and mail in their state return. That way, Intuit doesn't get a dime of unearned money.

5 days ago
top

Microsoft Confirms It Is Dropping Windows 8.1 Support

Dcnjoe60 Maybe.... (574 comments)

With actions like this, maybe this will really be the Year of Linux on the Desktop.

5 days ago
top

Jenny McCarthy: "I Am Not Anti-Vaccine'"

Dcnjoe60 Re:McCarthy the Playmate? (586 comments)

No, you just need to be gullible.

Doctors have been taking kick-backs for prescribing drugs for years. They have a long historical record of gettings things wrong. Previously using the wrong drugs and killing a bunch of people was not too serious, a number were probably going to die anyway. However something you are giving to an entire generation of healthy children you had better be pretty damn sure there aren't going to be side-effects down the line.

Phillip.

I would have to politely disagree. The so called kick backs are to prescribe this drug over that drug (such as one statin over another). Yes it happens all the time. It also happens at the auto dealer, Walmart and the grocery store. That's how marketing works these days.

However, that doesn't mean if a patient has high cholesterol that the doctor is doing anything wrong, if a statin is warranted, then so be it. With regards to doctors getting things wrong. Yes, they do. They also get things right. A lot of what they get wrong these days would have been lethal a generation or two ago. After all, while medicine is based on science, the practice of it is an art.

All medications, by the way, have side effects, even the common aspirin. What needs to be determined is whether the risk of side effects outweigh the risk of not taking the medicine. Take the polio vaccine, even if 1/10 of 1% of the kids who received it had a complication, should that mean the other 99.9% should forgo it and risk polio (which the 1/10 of 1% would have risked, too)?

It's all about probabilities and statistics and a medical professional is better suited to helping a patient decide on a course of action than a former playboy bunny. The reality is that we are very, very good with medicine these days. A few generations ago, when the prognosis was far worse than it would be today, nobody would have questioned a vaccine, even if 10% of the people had bad side effects. Just look at how polio or influenza devastated families and cities. No, this whole issue is because people just take medicine and medical procedures for granted today. Medicine, as much as it has a long way to go, has become that good.

So you have no doubts, though. Regardless of the medicine, or vaccine or medical procedure, there will always be side effects. Your worry should be whether or not the risk of the side effects outweigh the risk of the treatment. Put differently, just because the fertility rate among couples having unprotected sex is around 20% doesn't mean one should forgo protection. Why? Because the risk if you are in that 20% is quite large. Likewise, with the fraction of a fraction of a percent with vaccines. Complications can occur, but the risk of not being vaccinated is much worse.

Everything has side effects. Plain and simple.

5 days ago
top

Jenny McCarthy: "I Am Not Anti-Vaccine'"

Dcnjoe60 Re:McCarthy the Playmate? (586 comments)

It doesn't matter if she used to be a Playboy model, or if she used to build skyscrapers, or if she used to be a circus performer: the only thing that's relevant is that she's not and never has been a medical professional. She's just as wrong as any other anti-vaxxer

And that all "anti-vaxxers" are wrong is your professional medical experience talking, or are you holding her to standards you don't hold yourself too?

You don't have to have professional medical experience to accept what medical professionals say about the safety of vaccines any more than you have to have profession cosmology experience to accept what professional cosmologists say about the Big Bang.

about a week ago
top

The New 'One Microsoft' Is Finally Poised For the Future

Dcnjoe60 First step (270 comments)

One code base is just the first step. The problem is how tightly the presentation layer is tied to the kernel. Microsoft would have been in a better position if they broke it out more like the linux pyramid with a common kernel at the base, plumbing in the middle and a display manager on top. Then, the presentation layer in that display manager could be swapped out as needed based on the form factor involved.

KDE did this with their netbook and desktop interfaces. Regardless of which one you use, it is still all KDE underneath. One Microsoft should be about have "one" Windows with interfaces tailored to specific use cases, not "one" interface for all use cases.

about two weeks ago
top

Mathematical Proof That the Cosmos Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing

Dcnjoe60 Re:Get something about math proofs. (604 comments)

I don't think anybody really thinks the "laws of the universe changed" per se. Most would probably suspect that there is a more fundamental set of laws that work under both conditions, but we don't understand what they are. These laws would reduce to the understood laws in the conditions they are well-behaved in today, just as how Newtonian physics works the same as relativity when you're not talking about high speeds/mass/etc.

Whether the laws changed or today's laws are imperfect, we are left with the same outcome. The math in the calculations is based on today's physics. If those laws changed, between the start of the universe and now, then they can't be used to show how the universe came into existence. On the other hand, if the laws didn't changed, but today's laws, or what we know about them are imperfect, then likewise, they can't be used to show that the universe came into existence spontaneously.

We have vast evidence of an expanding universe vie the Big Bang. We also have vast evidence of quantum theory, we explains greatly the motion of particles. The problem is, in a very over-simplified way, that at the moment of the Big Bang, when the entire universe was very, very, very tiny, what we know of quantum theory wouldn't allow for an expanding universe like we have it today.

If what we know about quantum theory, precludes an expanding universe like we have today, then how can we use quantum theory to show that the expanding universe we have today came about spontaneously?

(Before people post about it, I know the above is vastly over simplified and as such, there are all sorts of holes that can be poked through it. Regardless, though, if one goes through the real issues (non-simplified), the problem still exists and will continue until our understanding of quantum theory advances to the point that it can be used to describe the universe we have today.)

about two weeks ago
top

Mathematical Proof That the Cosmos Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing

Dcnjoe60 Re:Get something about math proofs. (604 comments)

And finally, if quantum theory is suspect, anything based on it that showed the universe could spontaneously come into existence is also suspect.

We already know that quantum theory isn't the whole picture - it has no explanation of gravity. It is a great theory in the same way that Newton's laws of motion was a great theory. Ultimately it is going to need some tweaking once we figure out how to actually perform the experiments that determine how it breaks down.

It's not just that it's not the whole picture, but quantum theory and the big bang are mutually exclusive. The problem is that we have evidence for both, which is cosmologist say there must have been different laws of physics governing the very early universe than now. That could be true, but then requires an explanation of how and why the old laws changed to the new laws. And if those laws changed, then how do we know the calculations used for this "proof", which are all based on the current laws, are valid at the point of the start of the universe?

about two weeks ago
top

Mathematical Proof That the Cosmos Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing

Dcnjoe60 Re:Ex nihilo nihil fit (604 comments)

That's why I prefer the Mathematical "nothing" : the empty set has all properties.

But did it prior to the beginning of the universe? It would be easy to answer yes to that question thinking that math is math, however we already know that at the big bang, the laws of physics that we know didn't exist yet, so why would set theory?

about two weeks ago

Submissions

Dcnjoe60 hasn't submitted any stories.

Journals

Dcnjoe60 has no journal entries.

Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...