Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Too complicated to answer (Score 1) 84

Well I've checked and it seems three z13 CPU share 480MB L4, and one CPU ("Storage Controller") can have 480MB to its own.
Three full POWER8 would have 128MB L4 each, or 384MB if you add them up.
You can add up cache figures like that but it seems suprisingly close.

Comment Re:This was not a screw-up (Score 1) 280

Let's consider the dictator of Belarus. The US doesn't support the regime (e.g. with weapons, flow of money from Wall Street etc.) nor wants to kill or remove the dictator. That's because nobody gives a shit about that country and it has a neighbour a bit too big military and vocal, but there is no dichotomy.

Comment Re: Liberals (Score 3, Interesting) 280

I like this one

Before his next appearance on Fox, Kristol could do worse than peruse Professor Hamoud Salhi’s address, presented at the Center for Contemporary Conflict, of the (U.S.) Naval Postgraduate School in June 2004.(iii pdf) It is entitled: “Syria’s Threat to America’s National Interest.” It is arguably even more pertinent now – and another reminder of how long Syria has been in U.S. sights.

He opens: “Syria’s threat to America’s national interest in the Middle East can only be understood in the context of U.S. plans to reconfigure the Middle East. Knowing now that the motive for invading Iraq was strategic, taking over Syria would give the United States further strategic depth in the region tipping the balance of power (even more) in favour of the United States regional allies, Israel and Turkey.”

Salhi notes that “strategic pre-emption” is long central to American policy in the Middle East, citing Rapid Deployment Forces during the Carter Administration, Dual Containment under Clinton, Pre-emptive Doctrine under George W. Bush. Polices, he holds, which: “have been instrumental in maintaining hegemony in the region”, avoiding threats to U.S interests, or to those of Israel,Turkey and the Gulf States.

After the 1998 US-UK Christmas bombing of Baghdad drew world-wide criticism, Salhi points out that the often daily (illegal) bombing of Iraq by the two countries was stepped up, with often daily sorties, “using the latest technology” destroying what minimal economic infrastructure remained: “under the pretext that they represented future threats.” It was he contends, the “quiet war”, an ongoing tragedy little noticed by the world.

The ground was – literally – being prepared for invasion, the trigger finger ever itchier, any excuse sought. George W. Bush would later explain that invading Iraq was necessary: “ to advance freedom in the greater Middle East ” (Emphasis mine.)

11th September 2001 arguably gave the excuse to release the safety catches. On 20th September 2001 PNAC sent a letter to Bush: “ recommending the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, even if no direct link to the 9/11 attack were found.” Time to redeem American: “supremacy in global politics (and for) regime changes in Iraq, Iran and Syria.”

Michael Ledeen, foreign policy expert, another neo-con minded Fox News commentator, alleged to be a “strong admirer” of Niccolo Machiavelli, regarded 1991’s Desert Storm attack on Iraq as a woeful missed chance states Salhi. He notes Ledeen’s view that driving Iraqi troops from Kuwait was wholly inadequate. Strategy should have been: “regime change in Baghdad” (as) “one piece in an overall mission”, which should have been: “one battle against Iran, Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia.”

Addressing “The Syrian Threat”, Professor Salhi reminds of the U.S. Congress 2004 “Syria Accountability Act” which considerably financially weakened Syria’s fragile economy, with further aims clearly paving the way to regime change.

That achieved: “the United States will have completed its final stage of encircling Iran. This would further tip the region’s balance of power in favour of Israel and ultimately open new doors” for the U.S. “active involvement in toppling the Iranian regime.”

Afghanistan is just a side gig, perhaps simply an opportunity to wage war even if it's strategically useless. The "revenge war against 911" narrative needs the US to go in Afghanistan : if you only attack Iraq, every one knows it's unjustified because there's no Al Qaeda or Bin Laden at all in that country, so the US would be isolated. Occupying Afghanistan build a coalition instead.

About instigating war in other countries, or invading, or bomb dropping : the US long had the intention of doing it to Syria. Incompetence doesn't really explain the many disasters that have happened in the last decade. The neocons do what they do on purpose. When the US makes up a civil war in a country, helps with with cash and weapons flowing then later wants to insentify it with air strikes it's because the US intended for it to be a civil war.

Thus it is all the US's fault.
Is ISIS encouraged by the US or receives help from the US? I think not, or perhaps US allies indirectly help them. But it got to that point thanks to neocons not giving any consideration to the consequences of what they do. Security of people or respect for human life are to be ignored. A neocons's daily activities is to try to find ways to damage a target country's interests and increase its "threat level".
Failing that, a high murder rate in the target country (say 1000 per month) is better than nothing : the target government is bogged down and you can blame them for the results of your actions (such as providing political, logistical and monetary support to murderers) and denounce them when they do air strikes etc. of their own.

It's a bit like the "Republican hate us and want all of us to die" troll you might know. I claim it applies literally to US neocons.

Comment Re:what's the problem? (Score 1) 137

That not so much a trend as an habit some people might have.
If you used your desktop PC 12 years ago to play music, you likely had all your digital music (say 20 to 40GB) in a folder on your PC, you thus had access to your entire collection every time (that you were at home and using the PC).
A completely unremarkable PC was needed.

Storing an entire book is as trivial as storing a song, thus people used to storing 5000-10000 songs on a low end or outdated PC may expect to store all of their e-books on an e-book - whether you have 12, 100 or 2500 ones.

Comment Re:Nonsense (Score 1) 137

Thanks. That is described in TFA but god knows who reads it.

The frustration really is an annoyance because people will want to see it as a semi-dedicated device (small tablet that reads books) and for that they typically want to use the software that comes with it. Going online to install some software is some kind of a barrier.
With smartphones most people use the default browser, the default music player, the default SMS software. If they install apps at all it's likely so as to actually do something else.

Comment Re:what do you want for $50? (Score 1) 137

Remember the Game Boy? It did cost a bit more but it was cheap.
Ebooks - the devices - are the closest things to the original Game Boy, i.e. black and white, made for prolonged offline use and a very long battery life for cheap. That's like an extension of 80s tech.

Turns out I don't really need or want a science-fiction device, which comes with the wrong sort of science-fiction too (Brave New World, panopticon dystopia etc.)
I would want to see a modern "game boy" with D-pad and buttons on the bottom, high res monochrome LCD with touch (black on amber) or OLED, such as 800x1280 or 768x1024 - 1200x1600 or 1280x1280 etc. and lastly fuck networking, do only USB file transfers (or SD) and Bluetooth 4.x. Have a bluetooth USB module included in the box, because Bluetooth is rare enough on PC.

Less than $100, or less than $80 and give me a week battery life. A volume know instead of buttons because, let's have something different and nicer to use. The thing it is not is "app store" friendly. Why not sell software on carts (e.g. a non-action game collection, a map of a whole country or Europe, a scrabble game with multiple languages and dictionaries etc.)

Comment Re:Obvious reason... (Score 2) 137

A TV analogy : what, you expected to get a cheap TV and change channels? If you want to change channels, you should expect that you have to get a high end TV, not a barrel scrapping one.

Where that analogy fails : if there's a $200 Amazon tablet, you can bet the same software limitation is still in.

Comment What's the screen size? (Score 1) 137

First tablet review I'm skimming through without even knowing what the size of the thing is.
Only on the very bottom of the page you get a hint about the size, in "related articles" : it's a 6". Even following the link, it's a mystery as what's the display resolution.

The Wright Bothers weren't the first to fly. They were just the first not to crash.