Forgot your password?

Comment: Maybe it's the weightlessness (Score 1) 41

Your having been to space is no guarantee that you're not crap-on-the-floor looney.

I would have thought that we've learned better than to pay too much attention to former astronauts. They might well be right about the asteroids, but I still think we should go ahead and get a second opinion on this.

Comment: Re:How's your Russian? (Score 1) 250

by PopeRatzo (#46796657) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Hungry Students, How Common?

That U.S. crotch you're cheerfully kicking might not be able to bail out your "actual civilized" buttocks from the next war.

I'm pretty sure Europeans are more worried about the US starting the next war.

The thing Europeans like best about the US military is all the coin we drop having bases there. Unless you count Serbia, where the US military is about as welcome as a bladder infection.

Comment: Re:Why? (Score 3, Insightful) 88

by Jeremy Erwin (#46796409) Attached to: Google's New Camera App Simulates Shallow Depth of Field

Consider this picture of a spider dining on its prey--possibly a cricket.

What's important? the spider, the web, the meal.
What's not important? the storm drain, the foliage

It's not completely successful, but both the foliage and the storm drain are out of focus, while the spider, the meal, and the web are in focus. The aperture control on a large sensor camera lets the photographer select where the blurriness ends, and where it begins. Generally, the longer the focal length of the lens, the more dramatic the effects of opening up the aperture. Since camera phones use short focal length lenses, the blurring effect is quite subtle, and is often insufficient to draw in the viewers eye.
In this particular case, it's a macro shot, so even a very narrow aperture (f/16) involves some blurriness. Quite often, macro-photographers use very narrow apertures-- f/16-f32, in an attempt to resolve all of the interesting aspects of their subjects.

Comment: Re:Multiple heads? (Score 1) 253

by Firethorn (#46783685) Attached to: SSD-HDD Price Gap Won't Go Away Anytime Soon

Actually, "client" workloads (personal computers) aren't very parallel so the requests are served sequentially. As such, this won't help too much.

Most client machines don't have multiple drives mirrored either. I was thinking purely in a server setting when I made the comments, though I'll admit that I didn't specify.

A HD with two head systems still wouldn't match an SSD for random reads, but it'd be much better than one. Depending on the use it's seeing, it could even employ different algorithms depending on the use mode it's seeing to help speed things along. In addition, more cache might help it during a large sequential read, allowing the heads to leapfrog each other better. Like I said - engineering and programming nightmare, but an interesting thought experiment.

By the way, if I remember correctly multiple requests on flight were implemented on SATA standard for client drives, 10 years ago or so on (SCSI had them for quite a while). I'm not sure Windows XP uses these queues.

You're talking about how the system queues multiple data(read/write) requests with the drive, and the drive possibly delivering them out of order(because it's using an optimized path to collect all the data), right?

I assumed that capability from the start. The REAL trick to the system is that to date it's one read head per platter, thus one device serving all the data. With two head systems, the question comes up of how you optimally assign said demands between the two head systems to most efficiently move the data.

Comment: Multiple heads? (Score 1) 253

by Firethorn (#46781695) Attached to: SSD-HDD Price Gap Won't Go Away Anytime Soon

This is actually a very interesting proposal. While I imagine the engineering and programming would be a relative nightmare*, it would provide a number of options for hard drives.

While it wouldn't double performance in most cases, especially not sequential operations, for random operations it'd be almost as good as two drives. Maybe better if the access is typically really random and one head can 'field' mostly the outer disc calls while the other catches the inner disk ones.

*Just look at the difference between programming a single thread application and multi-threading!

Comment: Re:It was a "joke" back then (Score 1) 275

One thing that isn't obvious though is that it's a 30Hz monitor. All the 60Hz ones, as far as I can tell, are still in $1000+ territory.

I should probably have put some disclaimers in my post about affordability and suitability. I'm not a refresh snob but I can't help but think that 30Hz is a bit slow for gaming, perhaps even video watching.

Comment: Re:As a SATCOM professional... (Score 1) 52

by DigitAl56K (#46780121) Attached to: The Dismal State of SATCOM Security

LDR services like Inmarsat were never meant to be secure. Now if this was about AEHF that would be news.

I'm pretty sure they're meant to be at least secure enough that Joe Shmoe couldn't take them over with a text message or a known hardcoded credential. Well, unless you can point someone at this list of vulnerabilities and say "it's not meant to be secure", and still make your sale, of course.

Shortest distance between two jokes = A straight line