Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Apple (Score 1) 51

Problem is this NUC with a quad i7, 16gb ram and 256gb SSD costs a lot more than the mac mini in the same configuration.

Citation? A Mac Mini configured with an i7 and 16GB and a 256GB SSD is $1399 (I just went to store.apple.com to find out). The equivalent NUC is not going to be "a lot more" than that. In fact I will bet it will be not more at all. It will be less. But we're going to have to wait for the thing to actually be stocked anywhere so we can see the actual selling price.

The Mac Mini in its current incarnation is also GIGANTIC. Check it out. 19.7x19.7cm compared to the NUC at 11.5x11.1cm. That is THREE TIMES the area.

Comment Re:Apple (Score -1, Flamebait) 51

Except the Mac Mini includes a built-in power supply, while the NUC needs an external power brick half as big as the computer.

Please sell Apple's stupid somewhere else. When they went to the built-in power supply, they dropped completely off my radar. Dumb. Do not want. So there is a big power cord leading to the wall instead of a small, light DC power cord leading to a small enclosed fanless brick lying on the floor where no one sees it and it doesn't take up any desk space, plugged into the wall. GIANT REGRESSION! Would you buy a laptop with such a stupid design?

Comment Re:I have said it before (Score 1) 384

If you study even high school economics for a single term, you will find that you can't just divide initial cost by operating lifetime to amortize it. There is this little thing called TIME VALUE OF MONEY. A few percent per year, carried over 40-60 years, really adds up.

You also have to count insurance. Even if it is partially or wholly subsidized by the government, SOMEBODY is paying. The worst disaster (leaving aside normal environmental pollution) that could possibly happen at a coal or oil or gas or solar plant is pretty much limited to the plant premises. I'll grant you that hydropower is capable of making vast areas wasteland and killing untold thousands if a big dam bursts. Otherwise, nuclear has a downside potentially thousands of times more devastating than the others. Insurance, fairly accounted, has to cover this.

It would take me hours to decide if the study you reference really accounts for all costs. Just at a glance, it LOOKS like they are properly accounting for amortization, but I see no mention of insurance. I do see the notation for nuclear: "does not reflect decommissioning costs or potential economic impact of federal loan guarantees or other subsidies".

Comment Re:Last straw? (Score 0) 533

The stupidity of Britain in pathetically weakening their defenses after WW1 and right up through the late thirties was responsible for not being able to stomp Hitler when the necessity arose and the opportunity to do so was golden. "Peace in our time" was effectively the mantra right from 1919 until 1 September 1939. The US suffered from the same moronic weakness. Germany was not a very strong power in 1939; they were furiously racing to rearm while Britain slept, and they were more than a match for Poland when the time came and Britain and France were too cowed to lift a finger to help Poland.

It would have been royally appropriate if Germany had walked over Britain like they did France. They came within an inch of doing it, but in the event the tiny RAF fighter force ended up showing that Germany's luftwaffe was terribly deficient. Also, the British and US navies hadn't been gutted as badly as the land and air forces, and Hitler didn't even try for a surface fleet. Luckily, Germany, Italy and Japan could not coordinate their forces enough to fight their way out of a paper bag.

Then after WW2, exactly the same thing, as the west couldn't fall over themselves fast enough to disarm, until Korea woke them up.

The cold war was the exception. And after 1992, the same broken record with getting suckered by twits nattering about the "peace dividend" lie. Even now Britain and the US are weak as kittens, and you got the absurdity of trying to fight Iraq and Afghanistan in laborious slow motion on the cheap in terms of manpower and equipment. Not cheap in terms of back-breaking expense though.

Comment Re:I Have Plans Now (Score 1) 222

All the answers to the contrary which you are going to get are wrong, wrong, wrong.

By far the best version is the original theatrical cut. The international release is very slightly better (one minute of "scary violence" is cut from the U.S. release), but either that or the U.S. release will do very nicely. This is the only version with Ford's voiceover, which is absolutely essential to understanding what is going on. It also adds tremendously to the noir feel.

The only way I know for sure to get this version is to get one of the multi-disc sets which include the "1982 theatrical release" (the 5-disc blu-ray set is a slam dunk). You can also get it on cable, but I doubt it is the only version circulating on cable or streaming.

All other versions (rare original workprint, 1986 U.S. broadcast version, 1992 director's cut, 2007 final cut) are CRAP in comparison.

Comment Re:Illogical (Score 1) 411

Nonsense. Better than 50% of males "get that far". A male in the U.S. reaching age 65 today can statistically expect to live, on average, until age 84.3.

83 is neither unusually young, nor unusually old, to die.

Slashdot Top Deals

Intel CPUs are not defective, they just act that way. -- Henry Spencer

Working...