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


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: No kidding (Score 5, Interesting) 158

by Sycraft-fu (#49102513) Attached to: Nvidia Faces Suit Over GTX970 Performance Claims

It is just a bunch of whiny asshats who care about specs on paper rather than real world performance. The 970 is damn amazing. It makes the 980 nothing more than a overpriced luxury toy, and I say that as a 980 owner. Its performance is within 10-15% of a 980s and it is like half the price, what's not to like?

Also as for the memory thing this is actually a BONUS from nVidia, not a cripple. What I mean is in the past, they'd have just stuck 3.5GB on it and called it good. Then, if something needed more than 3.5GB, you go to system memory which is very slow 16GB/sec if you are running 16x PCIe 3 and much slower if you run less (like if you are doing SLI on a consumer board with PCIe 2 it would be 4GB/sec). However with this, you get another 512MB of RAM that is faster. Not as fast as the primary RAM, but much faster than hitting the system RAM over the PCIe bus. It won't perform as well as a 980 in those high memory situations, but it would perform better than if it just didn't have it at all.

I agree they should have noted it better, but really who gives a shit in reality? The 970 is the best "step down" card they've ever made compared to the highest end. Amazing value for the money and real world benchmarks from somewhere like HardOCP show it kills at modern games.

It's also funny how they act like nVidia did this to "harm" people for some business reason. If anything, they'd want to make the 970 look worse so people would be more likely to spend the near double to get a 980. However instead they made the 970 as close to the 980 as they could and I'm sure that ate in to the 980 market.

Comment: No shit (Score 1) 213

by Sycraft-fu (#49095573) Attached to: Sony Offers a "Premium Sound" SD Card For a Premium Price

I get tired of seeing audio 'tards try to claim an expensive solution is needed to badly designed gear. I've seen this bullshtit with regards to S/PDIF cables and poorly designed DACs. It is true that you can get clock skew, reflections, etc with some cables. However any DAC worth its shit today should reclock and buffer the incoming signal, thus rendering transmission issues moot (so long as the signal is coherent enough to transfer the data). However, there are shitty "audiophile" DACs that don't and they try to use it as some kind of "proof" about cable quality.

What it comes down to is there are issues and they can be engineered around. When it comes to digital and noise ya, digital devices are noisy. Guess what? You properly ground and shield your analogue section and it is not an issue. It isn't like this is something super expensive and thus only available on the high end, just requires proper engineering. The answer isn't reducing digital noise since there is little that can be done on that front overall, it is making the analogue section immune to it.

Comment: Re:It was a terrible example of went to use a goto (Score 1) 677

by perpenso (#49075139) Attached to: Empirical Study On How C Devs Use Goto In Practice Says "Not Harmful"
Note that Torvalds concedes that the specific code example being complained about does not benefit by the use of goto.

Also not brought up in that discussions is that where to draw the line between goto and nesting depends on the amount of nesting and the length of the code in question, not nesting alone. People using goto in shorter simpler code are making the code less readable.

Now Love's example is a great one because of the falling through from one undo to another. Because the bailout applies to all nesting levels so far not just the current level. That would be awkward in purely structured code. However if the undo were constrained to only the err'ing level, if there had been a goto out after undo C and undo B then structured if/else would have been more readable. But as is with multiple levels of undo it is s very appropriate use of goto.

Unfortunately much use of goto is done when the code is simple and short, unlike Love's example.

Comment: Most Linux users want *nix not Linux itself ... (Score 1) 393

by perpenso (#49072411) Attached to: PC-BSD: Set For Serious Growth?

Last I checked, Hollywood effects companies were all running their serious FX software on Linux desktops.

A lot of industrial grade engineering, scientific, graphics, etc code is *nix based. These users may be running Linux on PC hardware but they don't really want or care about Linux. They want a convenient working *nix to get their work done. Linux is just a convenient option. These people don't really care about the politics, the gpl, etc. If a BSD provided a more convenient option many would migrate.

Comment: Re:You sunk my battleship (Score 1) 439

by perpenso (#49064131) Attached to: Will Submarines Soon Become As Obsolete As the Battleship?

Did you miss the part about aircraft being ineffective at night? The strategic problem of the campaign, for both sides, was that the United States could dominate the skies during the day but had to rely on surface ships at night.

The US carriers were withdrawn due to fear of their loss.

At the beginning of the campaign the Marines were landed and the fleet carriers withdrew a couple of days later. The loss of air cover caused support ships to be withdrawn. Marines ashore watched the majority of their supplies and equipment sail away with those ships.

Escort carries would make runs to within range of Guadalcanal to deliver aircraft to Henderson field. I believe Henderson was the major source of US airpower in the area for a while.

A little over two weeks after withdrawing the fleet carriers came up to intercept a Japanese carrier force coming south. This battle took place well to the north east of Guadalcanal. Aircraft from Henderson engaged forces in the vicinity of Guadalcanal.

If it wasn't for the surface fleet, including battleships, the marines ashore would have been in a bad way to put it mildly.

The Marines were in a bad way. They had less that a weeks food and light on ammunition too. Fortunately they were able to capture some Japanese food.

And yes, to say the surface fleet -- in particular the destroyers and cruisers -- fought valiantly to protect the Marines is an understatement. At times these destroyers and cruisers attacked vastly superior enemy forces on their routine patrols up the slot because they were the only thing between this force and the Marines.

Comment: Re:You sunk my battleship (Score 1) 439

by perpenso (#49058707) Attached to: Will Submarines Soon Become As Obsolete As the Battleship?

Incidentally, the turning point of the war didn't happen at Midway, as is often repeated, but rather it happened at Guadalcanal. Midway was a battle, Guadalcanal was a campaign, one which proved the Japanese were not equipped materially or psychologically to fight a long war.

Midway occurred a month earlier and Imperial Japan lost four fleet carriers and more importantly many of their absolutely best air crews. This alone is arguably a valid turning point. At least in a naval sense and the pacific war was essentially a naval war. Now consider how this loss benefited the US at Guadalcanal. The victory at Midway greatly contributed to the victory at Guadalcanal.

Besides the material benefits Midway destroyed the myth of invincibility of the Imperial Japanese Navy and Guadalcanal destroyed the myth of invincibility of the Imperial Japanese Army and Marines. Both played extremely important roles.

Comment: Re:You sunk my battleship (Score 1) 439

by perpenso (#49058673) Attached to: Will Submarines Soon Become As Obsolete As the Battleship?

Not that it mattered, really, since by the start of the war battleships were really only useful for providing shore bombardment and as AA platforms.

This is dead wrong. Read the history of the Guadalcanal campaign; it was surface ships that carried the day. Aircraft were ineffective at night and are best used in an offensive role, they can't effectively protect ships bringing in troops and supplies

I believe that during parts of the Guadalcanal campaign the aircraft carriers were withdrawn from the area to keep them "safe", well safer. They certainly saw action but toe to toe fleet engagements were being avoided. We were a little short on fleet carriers in 1942.

Also some of the capital ships sunk by aircraft had an assist from surface action. In one of those nighttime surface engagements a US destroyer put 3 torpedoes into a Japanese battleship, greatly reducing her speed. She could not keep up with the retreating fleet and was sunk by US aircraft in the morning when the sun came up.

Comment: Used during 80s and 90s too (Score 1) 439

by perpenso (#49058617) Attached to: Will Submarines Soon Become As Obsolete As the Battleship?

BB's were used as ground fire support in Nam (a co-worker once told me an apocryphal story about a call for fire that got routed to a BB), but other than showing the colors, they really haven't done anything else since.

They were used in the 1980s to shell various hostile positions in Lebanon after the Marine barracks was attacked. This included killing a Syrian general in his command post.

They were also used in the 1991 Gulf War to shell various Iraqi positions.

Comment: Re:Apple II emulators ... (Score 1) 166

by perpenso (#49058569) Attached to: Vint Cerf Warns Against 'Digital Dark Age'

Switching video modes **mid-scan line** is NOT some "rare" undocumented unsupported hack.

Google it. People who used it back in the day mention it is not supported, relies on a hardware quirk and does not work on all Apple IIs.

It is about achieving 100% cycle accurate emulation.

And achieving 99.x% is an amazing technical achievement and extremely useful.

Innovation is hard to schedule. -- Dan Fylstra